Dashingsteel.3410

Why are people trying to turn this game into drag queen story hour?

Yeah, unfortunately jps have become more important as the game has aged. Lots of Nintendo game mechanics have also been added since HoT. Really not interested in Kangaroo simulator 2.

I am grateful for your advice, but I need no counseling, fortunately, I need my community back... You are calling people animals because they disagree with you about a video game! You said these people are nothing. Just a bit over the top.

I am wondering how long this thread will remain now that you have directly insulted other members of the community. The forum monitors always rush to protect certain groups in this community. I wonder if they will be consistent and take this thread down.

Op, please get counseling.

speak for urself pls. all of the few ppl still playing the game from back then i know speak highly of season 1. still by far the best season/experience to date in my opinion too, both story-wise and how they used their world to tell the story. imagine they would have continued in this way. maybe we wouldnt get an empty new map every few months no one plays in after every1 grinded his/her map-specific 100est currency. instead they would add content to existing maps, change them around, destroy things, build new ones etc. THAT eould have been the way to keep old maps relevant and interesting. regarding the complains about missing replayability: just turn old events/bossfights into fracs, simple as that. sure, u wont be able to play the whole story this way, but lets be honest: the lw-episodes we have now are mostly cohesive and dont require any knowledge of previous one anyways. just add some sort of hystorian-npc that gives u a recap of the rpevous ecvents u missed, maybe even with the cutscenes etc. and wed be good to go. the only real issue i ever had with season one were the technical difficulties. serious lag, dcs snd overall poor performance during large events. which didnt change much in 7 years, im looking at u wvw and bossrush... I am not discounting those who enjoyed it, but there is no doubt whatsoever that S1 was not well received at all in a more generalised sense. It had virtually no story, an over reliance on festivals, temporary content and a complete lack of direction. Even the devs were complaining about it - specifically the dungeon devs who saw their hard work stripped. Those who were here no matter how they feel about the Season will remember the backlash acutely. One acknowledged repeatedly by Anet themselves. In the 7 years, I have seen no other expac or season cause as strong a negative reaction as Season 1 did.Story alone in 18 months had less narrative than 2-3 episodes of a current Season. The quality of the story was even worse, with it barely showing any direction beyond super powered baddie being able to do things that made no sense. For all S2s perceived faults today, it was generally well regarded in how it explsined the story of S1 better than S1 ever attempted to. If they had continued down this route, GW2 prob would not exist today. I am not saying that arent important and great bits from S1 - the marjory investigation instance. marionette, revamped Teq, Battle for LA. The invasions are now templates for many side stories.But at the time and as a whole season, it was a mess and a disaster for the game that it took a long time to recover from. If you were there with us and enjoyed it, then great. I guess I must be in the minority because I had a very negative reaction to season 2 because it seemed extremely mundane compared to season 1. Season 2 also emphasized single player mode over massively multiplayer mode. In the seasons following season 1, there was nothing to draw players together. I've heard many players say that some of the fondest memories in the game came from the season 1 events I have never heard a player wax nostalgic about subsequent seasons.

Easy for you to say that when you get to experience it while some of us don't, the only way to see how those events play out are by watching youtube videos, I was confused as to why Lion's Arch looked different during PS instance. so what we got in subsequent seasons was story episode that was basically single player mode...… There wasn't anything to draw a bunch of players Marionette and battle for lion's arch made the story feel epic very unlike the next seasons

The special events are what made season 1 the greatest in my opinion. I wish Anet hadn't listened to the complaints of newer players and instead kept rolling out special events for subsequent seasons.

sinking ship

I think Anet knows things aren't fine and dandy but just doesn't give a shit

Technically, Elder Dragons were officially neither male nor female back in 2010. Before people cared about all this political view kitten. Elder Dragons had concept of strategy and mental process since 2010. And Elder Dragons were communicating with Tyrians since 2007 (Svanir says "Hello"). BTW, making something interactive on a sapient level and having emotions is not really humanizing. There's a lot of room between "human" (both intelligent and emotional), "robot" (intelligent but emotionless), "animalistic" (emotional but non-intelligent), and "mindlessness" (neither emotional nor intelligent). The only reason why the Elder Dragons' gender is being brought up, is because the playerbase asked devs about it. Nothing political behind it all. But I guess that won't stop people from kitten about a non-issue. So Anet made sure to include it in their living world magazine...…. Because people kept asking/talking about it. So they put it in an official source. Like they did with both Mordremoth and Kralkatorrik. They are trying to normalize the term non binary Is their something wrong with the term?I am not from the USA so I don't really know why saying non binary is such a problem. Whew, so here's the nutshell on why the term is controversial. Full disclosure, I may, or may not agree with the following. I'm not putting this dog in the fight for my own gain, but to explain it. Humans, are a gender binary species, meaning the species requires two sexes for reproduction. We do not know of any gender trinary species, meaning three biological sexes are required for reproduction. And anything that does not have gender distinctions, tends to reproduce via mitosis. So, to the left, non-binary obviously applies to the gender-norms produced by the evolution of society, which we should, of course have a choice about. To the right, the gender-norms produced by society are a product of human evolution (or god, depending on your own personal view) and thus to claim the term non-binary in thier view is a rejection of the most basic facts of biology. Bassicly the two sides have a different answer to the chicken or the egg question. "which came first the gender or the sex?" (don't actually answer this, we need not fight here) The terminology is the battleground. (dumb as that sounds.) if the terms are normalized, then it becomes harder to do science. (see bill c17 from Canada... I think that's the one) if the terms are not normalized, then lots of well meaning innocent people will suffer riticule. So the use, or lack of use, of a term like non-binary is throwing down the political gauntlet. So I guess if they said gender less for example their would have been no outcry.But because non binary (which would apply equally well if jormag is gender less) has a political meaning attached to it people are against it. That seems a little silly to me but wathever I guess. The c17 I found talked about migration so I don't really get why the exeptence of the word could make it harder to do science.Could you explain that part?Are you talking about surveys or something? non binary and genderless are not the same thing...… non binary can be used as an umbrella term, encompassing many gender identities that don't fit into the male-female binary...….. genderless means the person does not identify anywhere along the male/female spectrum. After all that, I really don't care how Jormag identifies.... I would rather know what Jormag actually is.... Male, female, hermaphrodite or asexual.

I agree and I wish they would have gone with this explanation. Unfortunately, Anet seems to want to cater to the gender theory crowd. I don't care what Jormag identifies as because self identification is often false. For example, Elizabeth Warren identified as an native American and even got preferential treatment at Harvard because of it but once the dna tests were run she was actually .098% native American. Rachel Dolezal identified herself as an African American woman and even served on the NAACP but was later found that she was not African American. Anet, don't tell me what Jormag identifies as. Tell me what Jormag actually is.

The term gender is meaningless with today's "state of mind" usage. I would rather know if dragons are sexual(male, female, or hermaphroditic) or asexual(not likely but perhaps something fantastical like creating their own progeny through magic).

I would be more interested to know the biological sex of Jormag and the other dragons. Do they have male and female? Are they hermaphroditic? The term gender has become meaningless with its "state of mind" usage today.

Enough with the aoe….. That's the problem with wvw right now.... too much aoe it's turned world vs world into a "circle" jerk