i hate that devs allways have to call their things unique
doubt any of the GW devs played DAoC? they actually had nearly the same name, different origin, similiar look. but sylvan and sylvari aint THAT different after all eh?
i just wish they'd be more carefull with their "unique" claims ^^
Oh really so the Sylvan in DAOC were birthed from a pale tree that is as tall as a skyscraper, and that tree in that game became self aware too? You also mean that the Sylvan in DAOC all shared in a dream while they were being cared for by the pale tree, that gave them knowledge and understanding of the world around them. This dream also in DAOC expanded based on the lives of the Sylvan so each generation born could have different knowledge at birth than the other Sylvan. Also the Sylvan were born as adults and had dreams and passions that they received from their mother the pale tree?
Yes you are so right not many differences at all between a Sylvari and Sylvan, I am so glad we have the unique police around to take a bird’s eye view on a subject and say things are not unique. After all from a bird’s eye view there is not much difference between a hill and mountain so why do we even have both words, they are not unique!
lol, got a little fanboi here eh?
yea they are sooo different, we never had tree people before who looked like trees!
if you think they are sooooo unique, go back to your fanboi world. i am so glad you corrected me and showed me they are not a tree born race, do not have a bark like skin and dont like nature at all.
my bad, they are so different... (ps: did you actually see avatar? not so new if you think about it eh?)
sorry if i made you rage, thanks for amusing me tho
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
i hate that devs allways have to call their things unique
doubt any of the GW devs played DAoC? they actually had nearly the same name, different origin, similiar look. but sylvan and sylvari aint THAT different after all eh?
i just wish they'd be more carefull with their "unique" claims ^^
Oh really so the Sylvan in DAOC were birthed from a pale tree that is as tall as a skyscraper, and that tree in that game became self aware too? You also mean that the Sylvan in DAOC all shared in a dream while they were being cared for by the pale tree, that gave them knowledge and understanding of the world around them. This dream also in DAOC expanded based on the lives of the Sylvan so each generation born could have different knowledge at birth than the other Sylvan. Also the Sylvan were born as adults and had dreams and passions that they received from their mother the pale tree?
Yes you are so right not many differences at all between a Sylvari and Sylvan, I am so glad we have the unique police around to take a bird’s eye view on a subject and say things are not unique. After all from a bird’s eye view there is not much difference between a hill and mountain so why do we even have both words, they are not unique!
lol, got a little fanboi here eh?
yea they are sooo different, we never had tree people before who looked like trees!
if you think they are sooooo unique, go back to your fanboi world. i am so glad you corrected me and showed me they are not a tree born race, do not have a bark like skin and dont like nature at all.
my bad, they are so different... (ps: did you actually see avatar? not so new if you think about it eh?)
sorry if i made you rage, thanks for amusing me tho
This quibbling about "uniqueness" is kind of going off the rails. I'd like to try and clarify something.
When the word "unique" was used in the video, it was used by Ree Soesbee who's a lore and history creator. I don't believe that Kristen Perry ever used the word when talking about the sylvari, so it's entirely possible Ree was referring just to her role in their creation, which would primarily concern their connection to the Pale Tree, the Dream, their specific outlook on the world and the Nightmare Court. Here's a quote from the end of the video, right after she used the disputed "unique" term: "Trust me, you have not seen every story a fantasy world can tell. Sylvari are new." Story is mentioned specifically, appearance is not.
But let's reject that for now.
Is it fair to call the sylvari appearance unique? Do they have a resemblance to any other type of character in game, film or literature? Yes -- so how can they be unique? Well, let me ask you this question: Are you unique? You've got two arms, two legs, two eyes, a nose and mouth just like everyone else (barring personal disaster). You've got skin pulled over a frame of muscle and bone. Your organs are located in the same spot as all other human beings and they have the same function. The exact same combination of eye and hair color is doubtless found among multiple millions of other people. Doesn't that just make you a copy?
And what about that old paragon of uniqueness itself, the humble snowflake? All snowflakes are little more than crystallized water that falls from clouds when it's cold. How can they possibly be considered unique?
So aren't we really just talking about a selective definition of the term 'unique'? If you think that people, including yourself, come about through a one-of-a-kind set of circumstances that will never be 100% repeatable, then the definition that you must use is that if something isn't completely identical to any other thing, then it must be unique. However, If it shares any traits with something else, it must be a copy or replica. Using the first definition gives us a lot of unique things in the world. Going with the latter, we get none because everything that exists and that will ever exist, will always be able to be compared to something else because everything has some trait that it shares with an another thing.
And if you think the actual definition lies somewhere in between, then you're into the realm of subjectivity and opinion because you will need to define what percentage of shared traits two things must possess to be considered the same or unique -- and there is no commonly accepted percentage that can be used to determine this. You just kinda know. And that's opinion.
So can the question of sylvari uniqueness now be put to bed? I don't think that I proved it one way or another, but I hope that I showed that the argument itself has no merit because really, we're just arguing the validity of our opinions.
i hate that devs allways have to call their things unique
doubt any of the GW devs played DAoC? they actually had nearly the same name, different origin, similiar look. but sylvan and sylvari aint THAT different after all eh?
i just wish they'd be more carefull with their "unique" claims ^^
I am actually sure that one of the devs said he used to play DaoC in a video a while back, not sure which one though but it was a long one with a lot of talking.
Syl·van [sil-vuhn] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or inhabiting the woods.
2.
consisting of or abounding in woods or trees; wooded; woody: a shady, sylvan glade.
3.
made of trees, branches, boughs, etc.
Sylvan and sylvari is not really unique names and dryads are often called sylvan something in games like Magic the gathering. It makes sense and both names can be a coincident or not.
Nothing is truly unique in fantasy anymore but they are different enough for me at least.
This ain't no science fiction game, it's FANTASY mmorpg. They don't have to base everything on scientific facts, real world biology or how likely to happen some event is.
I am not sure you quite understand what you are talking about. Fantasy often classifices as the science fiction when it comes to genres.
That said, fiction merely means the narrative is not based on any real world events. A story about a guy in New York who sells hotdogs could be considered Fiction if the person is a made up character along with the story arc.
For immersion to take place, especially when it comes to fiction, the elements need to make some sort of sense to the viewer/reader, or else you just end up alienated. This is why backstory and detailed design are important in fiction because they need to create the impression of "it could be real", if its too far fetched from how it is presented then it loses much of what makes the immersion factor occur.
In the movie Avatar, Neville Page had to literally create the creatures so they could realistically exist, with actual working bone structures, muscle and anatomy and all. This is what makes his creatures believable, better than others, even though they are just made up. That same attention to detail needs to apply to all fiction for it to be at its best. That is not so with this Sylvari race, which is clearly rediculous and over the top when it comes to any believability. Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Furthermore, too much contrast in character and world design for any project is not a good thing. It is the antithesis of consistency. So when you have hardened grim looking races and world, suddenly intermingling with fruity exaggerated races and world, you get a contrast that leads to alienation and lack of consistency for belief. Tolkein did a good job at employing a wide range of characters and races, world and locations, while still maintaining the consistency and low contrast.
It feels like, from my point of view that is, that the GW2 production is getting slightly out of control and probably too far away from their GDD concept. This is a not so rare effect in certain game studios, it may come back to bite them in the end. As for character designs and world designs, they seem to have a few feature creeps that are not being hushed. Google "Feature Creep" to see what I mean when it comes to GW2 and its direction.
I might play one, though I always start off with regular old humans...
The adventurous type huh?
You'd be surprised, some particular adventures are much more enjoyable with humans
In general I just feel more at home with their animations and look in games, while animal races are quick to bother me with something hanging loose or stuff
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Originally posted by zonzai Originally posted by Unlight Your intent to play one or not isn't relevant, just your impressions.
Sylvari look like homosexual plant elves. (No offense to homosexuals but elves and plant people are really lame) That is my honest impression of them. If I were a homosexual hippy LOTR groupie I would probably be extatic. Agian, this isn't an insult to homosexuals or even hippies. LOTR groupies can kiss my *** though.
You know, it's funny you should say that...
Do sylvari have romantic relationships?
Sylvari fall in and out of love, just like other races do. They have a romanticized view of devotion, and theyre curious about passion in all its forms. There are male and female sylvari, but none has ever produced a child as other races do. Because of this, traditional human-style gender roles have no meaning to sylvari, either in their society or in their romantic relationships. Often, a sylvaris ardor is expressed with courtly zealemotional, empathic, personaland is not necessarily defined by gender.
This ain't no science fiction game, it's FANTASY mmorpg. They don't have to base everything on scientific facts, real world biology or how likely to happen some event is.
I am not sure you quite understand what you are talking about. Fantasy often classifices as the science fiction when it comes to genres.
That said, fiction merely means the narrative is not based on any real world events. A story about a guy in New York who sells hotdogs could be considered Fiction if the person is a made up character along with the story arc.
For immersion to take place, especially when it comes to fiction, the elements need to make some sort of sense to the viewer/reader, or else you just end up alienated. This is why backstory and detailed design are important in fiction because they need to create the impression of "it could be real", if its too far fetched from how it is presented then it loses much of what makes the immersion factor occur.
In the movie Avatar, Neville Page had to literally create the creatures so they could realistically exist, with actual working bone structures, muscle and anatomy and all. This is what makes his creatures believable, better than others, even though they are just made up. That same attention to detail needs to apply to all fiction for it to be at its best. That is not so with this Sylvari race, which is clearly rediculous and over the top when it comes to any believability. Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Furthermore, too much contrast in character and world design for any project is not a good thing. It is the antithesis of consistency. So when you have hardened grim looking races and world, suddenly intermingling with fruity exaggerated races and world, you get a contrast that leads to alienation and lack of consistency for belief. Tolkein did a good job at employing a wide range of characters and races, world and locations, while still maintaining the consistency and low contrast.
It feels like, from my point of view that is, that the GW2 production is getting slightly out of control and probably too far away from their GDD concept. This is a not so rare effect in certain game studios, it may come back to bite them in the end. As for character designs and world designs, they seem to have a few feature creeps that are not being hushed. Google "Feature Creep" to see what I mean when it comes to GW2 and its direction.
Most people don't seem to feel alienated. Most people like what they see. Is it that you just don't like being in the minority that forces you to constantly beat this poor dead horse, or that you're just too self-superior to accept it?
Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Of course the leaves have a reason. They're there to roughly simulate human appearance. That wasn't hard to see. Huh. Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.
Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.
Most people don't seem to feel alienated. Most people like what they see. Is it that you just don't like being in the minority that forces you to constantly beat this poor dead horse, or that you're just too self-superior to accept it?
For one, we know you are already quite the fanboy for everything GW2. You are ultimately quite biased no matter what one says.
Secondly, you make quite a broad statement there which you can only somewhat tie to the people who use this forum, which is clearly a small niche. That said, I am basing off what results in alienation from actual behavioral science and how it is applied to not only games but entertainment in general. You can either respect my opinion or continue to play out the forum warrior role as you clearly do not like my opinion to begin with (fanboy bias).
As for beating a dead horse, I barely even talk about this on the forums outside 2 or 3 posts. Seems like you love to over exaggerate for the benefit of attempted belittlement. Please stop.
Originally posted by Meowhead
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Of course the leaves have a reason. They're there to roughly simulate human appearance. That wasn't hard to see. Huh. Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.
Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.
If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level.
Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.
Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.
Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Of course the leaves have a reason. They're there to roughly simulate human appearance. That wasn't hard to see. Huh. Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.
Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.
Anthropomorphicism acted out by the generating tree.
That explains the humanish appearance.
This is NOT an evolved species - it is designed by a magic, sentient tree.
The creatures the tree has come into contact with oftentimes have a a certain type of clothing, hair pattern, facial proportions, etc. The tree was planted by a Human and a Centaur. Both of which have human traits.
So - the tree that is absorbing all these facts and is the one giving rise to the Sylvari takes all that into consideration and is inspired to make a beautiful synthesis of its traits and the traits of existing species with which it has already and possibly hopes to interact with in the future.
It makes sense - for 2 reasons -
1. If you are sending out a group of sentient creature to learn, live and grow in a world, why make them totally alien to that world. If you are interested in integrating, you take on the traits of the people you are infiltrating. It puts them more at ease than say making a race that is all spikes and has teeth instead of eyes. The Sylvari were created with an eye toward integration and are meant to appeal to those who did evolve in that world.
2. Like the Xians and other cults and mythologies, the fake gods they come up with are often very human in appearance. Look at the pictures of Yahweh, Zeus, Odin... The believers in these gods created their gods to look like them. Well, the tree out of an inverse version of that is making its race look like the people who planted and guided it. It is in homage.
Does that make enough sense for you?
The Avatar creatures evolved, like we did, so they have to make sense with the physics, chemistry, terrain, flora and fauna of their world. BUT the Sylvari are created. They get to follow whatever rules their designer wants to put in place.
If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level.
Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.
Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.
Your point would only hold if the Sylvari as a race were evolved, rather than a case of intelligent design. Since they ARE intelligent design, cosmetic appearance holds on a lore level, as well as the creator level, because in both cases there is design involved. Now, if you want to talk about the hubris of deciding that a nigh-godlike being would choose to create things like a character designer would, well... I suppose that's a workable topic.
The plants in GW2 have definitely far surpassed Earth plants in just what they're able to do. They have mobility, magic abilities of their own, and are ridiculously durable. Even the plant monsters that just look like strange... giant plants are like this. Obviously the materials involved have far surpassed Earthly style plant parts.
On another, side note, talking about Avatar... while the character models were fairly well done, they should have hired somebody with a passing familiarity with jungle warfare tactics, because my personal ability to feel immersion in the movie was ruined whenever they bothered to have any sort of conflict between the natives and the humans. It just goes to show that immersion is a fragile thing, and even in something where you can find it in one place, it might be lacking horribly in another.
Also, there's two generally accepted definitions to dumb. An inability to speak, and stupidity... as in slow-witted and inability to understand (Rather than ignorance, which... you know what? You probably own a dictionary, actually. Go use it. I'm not going to explain basic meanings of words to you, even if you think you know what they mean, and don't.)
Calling somebody dumb is definitely an insult, so it's a little high handed of you to pass down that judgement upon all who disagree with you. I'm not belittling you (While you're clearly belittling everybody who disagrees with you), I'm asking for a little consistency in your use of English, and less insults.
Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Of course the leaves have a reason. They're there to roughly simulate human appearance. That wasn't hard to see. Huh. Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.
Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.
Anthropomorphicism acted out by the generating tree.
That explains the humanish appearance.
This is NOT an evolved species - it is designed by a magic, sentient tree.
The creatures the tree has come into contact with oftentimes have a a certain type of clothing, hair pattern, facial proportions, etc. The tree was planted by a Human and a Centaur. Both of which have human traits.
So - the tree that is absorbing all these facts and is the one giving rise to the Sylvari takes all that into consideration and is inspired to make a beautiful synthesis of its traits and the traits of existing species with which it has already and possibly hopes to interact with in the future.
It makes sense - for 2 reasons -
1. If you are sending out a group of sentient creature to learn, live and grow in a world, why make them totally alien to that world. If you are interested in integrating, you take on the traits of the people you are infiltrating. It puts them more at ease than say making a race that is all spikes and has teeth instead of eyes. The Sylvari were created with an eye toward integration and are meant to appeal to those who did evolve in that world.
2. Like the Xians and other cults and mythologies, the fake gods they come up with are often very human in appearance. Look at the pictures of Yahweh, Zeus, Odin... The believers in these gods created their gods to look like them. Well, the tree out of an inverse version of that is making its race look like the people who planted and guided it. It is in homage.
Does that make enough sense for you?
The Avatar creatures evolved, like we did, so they have to make sense with the physics, chemistry, terrain, flora and fauna of their world. BUT the Sylvari are created. They get to follow whatever rules their designer wants to put in place.
Plant life has hair, bristles and other elements that would be better suited to match and serve as a functional purpose over leaves though.
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
I can pretty much promise you that they sat in a meeting and said 1) what kind of people do we want to play this race 2) what would appeal to them and 3) what can we use to sell the image. In addition to the "feature creep" disease which exists within the game development field, the "re-design" is the most likely result. As a whole my opinion is that it would be better off if they toned down the walking veggie element quite a bit and sold the concept through story and interactivity more so than using a base human mesh and covering it with an over used icon.
They got sylvari, but no dwarves, what will they scratch next, humans?
No dwarves = no deal
Just my opinion, but losing humans and dwarves from a fantasy game.....GREAT idea. As long as there are also no orcs or elves, I'm sold. Shame they have to keep the humans for those who aren't creative or adventurous enough to roll something OTHER THAN what they are every day of their lives. Playing a human in a fantasy game has never made sense to me. It's just....stupid. Okay, maybe not stupid per se, but....just annoying....to ME anyway.
If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level.
Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.
Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.
Your point would only hold if the Sylvari as a race were evolved, rather than a case of intelligent design. Since they ARE intelligent design, cosmetic appearance holds on a lore level, as well as the creator level, because in both cases there is design involved. Now, if you want to talk about the hubris of deciding that a nigh-godlike being would choose to create things like a character designer would, well... I suppose that's a workable topic.
Also, there's two generally accepted definitions to dumb. An inability to speak, and stupidity... as in slow-witted and inability to understand (Rather than ignorance, which... you know what? You probably own a dictionary, actually. Go use it. I'm not going to explain basic meanings of words to you, even if you think you know what they mean, and don't.)
Calling somebody dumb is definitely an insult, so it's a little high handed of you to pass down that judgement upon all who disagree with you. I'm not belittling you (While you're clearly belittling everybody who disagrees with you), I'm asking for a little consistency in your use of English, and less insults.
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent. It also assumes that a tree only knows about leaves. Any biomatter can take and form a shape to its liking, so using leaves for everything is utterly silly, just as much as creating genders for a genderless species.
Again you are going off on a tangent and yes as a means to belittle me. Clearly you are looking for something to rag on my post about, and its hardly on the subject at hand. I used the word dumb, I told you why, i also used the word ignorance. If you dont like those word choices, then too bad. You can disagree with it, but keep it to yourself or just let it go. Trying to tie it into a means to insult me is just pathetic on your part.
Furthermore I didnt call anyone dumb, check your reading comprehension. To insinuate I am attacking those who disagree with me when I just now started posting in this thread in any detail is silly and you know it. In fact I am not attacking anyone unless you consider detailed and open for discussion replies "attacking". I think you need to relax a little bit and take another look at these posts. You are too "up in arms" over nothing it seems, but thats just my perception.
If you continue to put meaning and intent where none existed, and continue these "attacks" or rather attempts at superiority, then this discussion is over. It serves no purpose and will only lead to a moderated thread.
yea they are sooo different, we never had tree people before who looked like trees!
if you think they are sooooo unique, go back to your fanboi world. i am so glad you corrected me and showed me they are not a tree born race, do not have a bark like skin and dont like nature at all.
my bad, they are so different... (ps: did you actually see avatar? not so new if you think about it eh?)
sorry if i made you rage, thanks for amusing me tho
And where did I say anything about the look of the Sylvari being different? In fact everything I pointed out that was different from the Sylvan is lore related! The fact that you think I am raging about your opinion and that I am fanboy, because I do not see eye to eye with your opinion is beyond funny. But great job at making a counter argument that deals with nothing that I said, I guess reading comprehension is overrated now.
Now if you want to prove me wrong and provide a counter argument to what I said, please provide me with a work of fantasy that has all the elements in a race that is in the Sylvari lore! But I guess that is too much to ask in a civilized discussion it is easier to call someone a fanboy and totally ignore what they said!
Originally posted by Unlight
This quibbling about "uniqueness" is kind of going off the rails. I'd like to try and clarify something.
When the word "unique" was used in the video, it was used by Ree Soesbee who's a lore and history creator. I don't believe that Kristen Perry ever used the word when talking about the sylvari, so it's entirely possible Ree was referring just to her role in their creation, which would primarily concern their connection to the Pale Tree, the Dream, their specific outlook on the world and the Nightmare Court. Here's a quote from the end of the video, right after she used the disputed "unique" term: "Trust me, you have not seen every story a fantasy world can tell. Sylvari are new." Story is mentioned specifically, appearance is not.
But let's reject that for now.
Is it fair to call the sylvari appearance unique? Do they have a resemblance to any other type of character in game, film or literature? Yes -- so how can they be unique? Well, let me ask you this question: Are you unique? You've got two arms, two legs, two eyes, a nose and mouth just like everyone else (barring personal disaster). You've got skin pulled over a frame of muscle and bone. Your organs are located in the same spot as all other human beings and they have the same function. The exact same combination of eye and hair color is doubtless found among multiple millions of other people. Doesn't that just make you a copy?
And what about that old paragon of uniqueness itself, the humble snowflake? All snowflakes are little more than crystallized water that falls from clouds when it's cold. How can they possibly be considered unique?
So aren't we really just talking about a selective definition of the term 'unique'? If you think that people, including yourself, come about through a one-of-a-kind set of circumstances that will never be 100% repeatable, then the definition that you must use is that if something isn't completely identical to any other thing, then it must be unique. However, If it shares any traits with something else, it must be a copy or replica. Using the first definition gives us a lot of unique things in the world. Going with the latter, we get none because everything that exists and that will ever exist, will always be able to be compared to something else because everything has some trait that it shares with an another thing.
And if you think the actual definition lies somewhere in between, then you're into the realm of subjectivity and opinion because you will need to define what percentage of shared traits two things must possess to be considered the same or unique -- and there is no commonly accepted percentage that can be used to determine this. You just kinda know. And that's opinion.
So can the question of sylvari uniqueness now be put to bed? I don't think that I proved it one way or another, but I hope that I showed that the argument itself has no merit because really, we're just arguing the validity of our opinions.
Thank you! Someone that actually looks at things from many different angles instead of their narrow viewpoint of how the world should work!
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Plant life has hair, bristles and other elements that would be better suited to match and serve as a functional purpose over leaves though.
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
I can pretty much promise you that they sat in a meeting and said 1) what kind of people do we want to play this race 2) what would appeal to them and 3) what can we use to sell the image. In addition to the "feature creep" disease which exists within the game development field, the "re-design" is the most likely result. As a whole my opinion is that it would be better off if they toned down the walking veggie element quite a bit and sold the concept through story and interactivity more so than using a base human mesh and covering it with an over used icon.
I do not mean to be rude, but when did you become the expert on race creation in all works of fantasy and science fiction? In fact the only thing I see here is an opinion being held up as fact that supposable surpasses the creators of said works! I do not ever remember anyone electing you chief race designer for the human race, where do you come off telling other people that their opinion on race design is wrong and your opinion is the only right one. Everything I have read here only points to you being a critic and not a creator, and I am sorry but no one in the long history of earth has cared what a critic said one hundred years after they are dead, while the creators become immortal!
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out howthe strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." - Theodore Roosevelt
Plant life has hair, bristles and other elements that would be better suited to match and serve as a functional purpose over leaves though.
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
I can pretty much promise you that they sat in a meeting and said 1) what kind of people do we want to play this race 2) what would appeal to them and 3) what can we use to sell the image. In addition to the "feature creep" disease which exists within the game development field, the "re-design" is the most likely result. As a whole my opinion is that it would be better off if they toned down the walking veggie element quite a bit and sold the concept through story and interactivity more so than using a base human mesh and covering it with an over used icon.
I do not mean to be rude, but when did you become the expert on race creation in all works of fantasy and science fiction? In fact the only thing I see here is an opinion being held up as fact that supposable surpasses the creators of said works! I do not ever remember anyone electing you chief race designer for the human race, where do you come off telling other people that their opinion on race design is wrong and your opinion is the only right one. Everything I have read here only points to you being a critic and not a creator, and I am sorry but no one in the long history of earth has cared what a critic said one hundred years after they are dead, while the creators become immortal!
1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.
2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?
Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?
Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?
I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.
i was disappointed they did not go with the more alien looking concept art.
games are too scared to branch out and provide a quite different experience.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.
2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?
Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?
Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?
I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
Everything in red is your opinion and not fact! With that you go out of your way to say it is a fact, and any other opinion is wrong, as if you are an expert and no one else’s opinion measures up to your intelligence and design process. You are not interesting in discussing the design or even seeing other people’s prospective on the design, you just keep stating how your opinion is fact and everyone else even the creators are wrong. Nowhere in any of this do you say this is just my opinion and I would have done the design differently! You just bluntly tell everyone how your opinion is fact and how they are all wrong and that the only intellectual position is yours.
Like I said I am not trying to be rude, but there is no discussion here, it is only you telling people how the design choices made are not that good and anyone with a different opinion is not intelligent enough to grasp it. This sounds like a critic to me!
Now if you actually want to have a discussion on the redesign, and not just keep sharing your opinion as facts that cannot be disputed, I would be interested in seeing what the community could create (and how other people would take that new look).
1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.
2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?
Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?
Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?
I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
Everything in red is your opinion and not fact! With that you go out of your way to say it is a fact, and any other opinion is wrong, as if you are an expert and no one else’s opinion measures up to your intelligence and design process. You are not interesting in discussing the design or even seeing other people’s prospective on the design, you just keep stating how your opinion as fact and everyone else even the creators are wrong. Nowhere in any of this do you say this is just my opinion and I would have done the design differently! You just bluntly tell everyone how your opinion is fact and how they are all wrong and that the only intellectual position is yours.
Like I said I am not trying to be rude, but there is no discussion here, it is only you telling people how the design choices made are not that good and anyone with a different opinion is not intelligent enough to grasp it. This sounds like a critic to me!
Seems like you dont know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact. For example, is what you are saying right now your opinion or a fact? You are stating it like a fact even though it is just your opinion.
You also selectively leave out the following explaination which clearly is important in decerning the difference between a blanket claim and an opinion with reasoning behind it.
An observation: Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this. Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme. This was posed as a question, which you ignore.
The second line contains the word IF, meaning its a hypothetical. So again, you missed the mark entirely.
This is all clearly my opinion mixed with some concrete details, this should be clear if you did not selectively pull pieces to try and fit your narrative.
You say I am not interested in discussing the design, but yet when have you bothered trying to discuss it with me? Your first post was a fancyful story you made up in an attempt to go after not the content but the author of the post. Not once did you even bother to try and start a dialog regarding the design or what I have actually said.
Again, nice try but no cigar. You project way too much. The more you type the more you come across as a delusional fanboy, and that is the antithesis of any intellectual discourse that would be preferable in this forum.
Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place.
Seems like you dont know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact. For example, is what you are saying right now your opinion or a fact? You are stating it like a fact even though it is just your opinion.
You also selectively leave out the following explaination which clearly is important in decerning the difference between a blanket claim and an opinion with reasoning behind it.
An observation: Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this. Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme. This was posed as a question, which you ignore.
The second line contains the word IF, meaning its a hypothetical. So again, you missed the mark entirely.
This is all clearly my opinion mixed with some concrete details, this should be clear if you did not selectively pull pieces to try and fit your narrative.
You say I am not interested in discussing the design, but yet when have you bothered trying to discuss it with me? Your first post was a fancyful story you made up in an attempt to go after not the content but the author of the post. Not once did you even bother to try and start a dialog regarding the design or what I have actually said.
Again, nice try but no cigar. You project way too much. The more you type the more you come across as a delusional fanboy, and that is the antithesis of any intellectual discourse that would be preferable in this forum.
Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place.
Of course it is all my opinion and not fact, I know my opinion on art and lore is subjective to my tastes and I know other people will have different views.
“Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this. Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme.”
How is what you said here a question, where in there do you ask for input? In fact you even have the comment you cannot logically argue with me on this, where in that phrase does that leave anything open to debate? You already said any other opinion besides this one is illogical, so where do we go from there?
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent. It also assumes that a tree only knows about leaves. Any biomatter can take and form a shape to its liking, so using leaves for everything is utterly silly, just as much as creating genders for a genderless species.
OK then let’s look at your IF statement, and see the hypothetical statement yearning for discussion. Ok so you’re if statement is to say if this was hypothetical intelligent designer then the use of leaves in the design would not be intelligent. Furthermore using leaves in the design is silly, since biomatter can form itself to any shape, I hope you do not mind me paraphrasing. You are so right this IF statement leaves so much open to debate, let’s see if you like the way the designers used the leaves you just told us that design would not be used by intelligent designers. Definitely makes me think you have an open mind for discussion and makes me want to share my opinion so I can be told how my design is not intelligent. Then you go on to say that the designers could have done anything with the design, but of course not leaves because that is just silly. That definitely makes me think I should share my opinion again, since I know if you like the leaf design that is just silly!
And let’s see how you open this grand discussion of art, with an open and objective opinion in order to share ideas.
Originally posted by Rabenwolf
That is not so with this Sylvari race, which is clearly rediculous and over the top when it comes to any believability. Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Furthermore, too much contrast in character and world design for any project is not a good thing. It is the antithesis of consistency. So when you have hardened grim looking races and world, suddenly intermingling with fruity exaggerated races and world, you get a contrast that leads to alienation and lack of consistency for belief. Tolkein did a good job at employing a wide range of characters and races, world and locations, while still maintaining the consistency and low contrast.
It feels like, from my point of view that is, that the GW2 production is getting slightly out of control and probably too far away from their GDD concept. This is a not so rare effect in certain game studios, it may come back to bite them in the end. As for character designs and world designs, they seem to have a few feature creeps that are not being hushed. Google "Feature Creep" to see what I mean when it comes to GW2 and its direction.
You start off by saying how over the top and ridicules the design is, and how ignorance is bliss. Because the dumber you are the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world like GW2 is. Then you go on to say how Tolkien did it right and how the GW2 developers should follow his lead. Then you end it with saying that from your point of view the art design is getting out of hand and might end up imploding on the GW2 designers.
OK now what part of that is open and inviting for the purpose of discussion art? The part where you say the art is ridicules and over the top and would only appeal to people that are dumb because they are stupid enough to get immersed in an over the top fictional world? Or how about your point of view that the art is out of control and might end up hurting the game in the long run. So tell me where in here is the open invitation to discuss the points we might like about the GW2 art, and not just the things we hate about it?
Oh I know where it is, it is when you call anyone that questions your opinion a GW2 fanboy! Or the complete dismissal of anyone else’s opinion of the design that does not match your own. Yep definitely from looking at the responses in this thread it is defiantly a call for a honest and open discussion on art design were everyone can be heard.
As for the last part“Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place."
I do not have any problem with people criticizing art and presenting their view on how they would do it, by either describing it or presenting a drawing of it. I do have a problem when people present a criticism and make it sound like the only valid opinion based on said art. And so far I have not seen one comment from you about the art but to say that your view is right, and the person you responded to is wrong!
I personally like the art; I enjoy the way the Sylvari appear in the video. But according to what you have said my view on art is unintelligent and just silly. But thankfully that is just your opinion, even though you like to present is as more than that!
Here is my view on the Sylvari; to view the Sylvari as a creation of a new being that just became self-aware and is learning and exploring the world around her. Is an interesting contrast when you normally look at a racial design by evolutionary traits, because to truly understand the design you have to wonder about the god that created it instead of the path of evolution that the race followed! When you look at the design of the leaves, flowers, and braches and the familiar shapes they create, you have to wonder about the thoughts that went through the creator upon creation. For example, you cannot help but wonder do the leaves that form a brow on a female Sylvari have special meaning to the creator? Is there emotion tied to the curve of a pedal? Does the god feel pride and love when she sees the curve of a branch? Then the one question that matters above all else, what does the answer to these questions tell me about myself. If I was that God what choices would I make when all options are present in front of me. Can I see myself in the virtues and the emotions crafted into the Sylvari, or is the illusion of life their God created more than myself?
Now let me guess your response is going to be about how the design is bad, and how it is subpar intellectual design for artist. That the use of leaves in the form of the Sylvari was a bad design choice for the artists at ANet, since matter can shape to any form, and using leaves is just silly. That ignorance is bliss and only dumb people can get immersed into a world full of such bad art design. Blah blah blah your opinion on the art is right and I am wrong and I just cannot see how bad the design choices are because I am GW2 fanboy! There you go I responded for you, you can consider me lectured on how true art should be view!
If they stay out in the sun too long, do they tan or need watering.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
For one, we know you are already quite the fanboy for everything GW2. You are ultimately quite biased no matter what one says.
Secondly, you make quite a broad statement there which you can only somewhat tie to the people who use this forum, which is clearly a small niche. That said, I am basing off what results in alienation from actual behavioral science and how it is applied to not only games but entertainment in general. You can either respect my opinion or continue to play out the forum warrior role as you clearly do not like my opinion to begin with (fanboy bias).
As for beating a dead horse, I barely even talk about this on the forums outside 2 or 3 posts. Seems like you love to over exaggerate for the benefit of attempted belittlement. Please stop.
Speaking of biases, that sword has two edges. Did you realize that or did they fail to cover it in Behavioural Sciences 101?
Comments
lol, got a little fanboi here eh?
yea they are sooo different, we never had tree people before who looked like trees!
if you think they are sooooo unique, go back to your fanboi world. i am so glad you corrected me and showed me they are not a tree born race, do not have a bark like skin and dont like nature at all.
my bad, they are so different... (ps: did you actually see avatar? not so new if you think about it eh?)
sorry if i made you rage, thanks for amusing me tho
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
This quibbling about "uniqueness" is kind of going off the rails. I'd like to try and clarify something.
When the word "unique" was used in the video, it was used by Ree Soesbee who's a lore and history creator. I don't believe that Kristen Perry ever used the word when talking about the sylvari, so it's entirely possible Ree was referring just to her role in their creation, which would primarily concern their connection to the Pale Tree, the Dream, their specific outlook on the world and the Nightmare Court. Here's a quote from the end of the video, right after she used the disputed "unique" term: "Trust me, you have not seen every story a fantasy world can tell. Sylvari are new." Story is mentioned specifically, appearance is not.
But let's reject that for now.
Is it fair to call the sylvari appearance unique? Do they have a resemblance to any other type of character in game, film or literature? Yes -- so how can they be unique? Well, let me ask you this question: Are you unique? You've got two arms, two legs, two eyes, a nose and mouth just like everyone else (barring personal disaster). You've got skin pulled over a frame of muscle and bone. Your organs are located in the same spot as all other human beings and they have the same function. The exact same combination of eye and hair color is doubtless found among multiple millions of other people. Doesn't that just make you a copy?
And what about that old paragon of uniqueness itself, the humble snowflake? All snowflakes are little more than crystallized water that falls from clouds when it's cold. How can they possibly be considered unique?
So aren't we really just talking about a selective definition of the term 'unique'? If you think that people, including yourself, come about through a one-of-a-kind set of circumstances that will never be 100% repeatable, then the definition that you must use is that if something isn't completely identical to any other thing, then it must be unique. However, If it shares any traits with something else, it must be a copy or replica. Using the first definition gives us a lot of unique things in the world. Going with the latter, we get none because everything that exists and that will ever exist, will always be able to be compared to something else because everything has some trait that it shares with an another thing.
And if you think the actual definition lies somewhere in between, then you're into the realm of subjectivity and opinion because you will need to define what percentage of shared traits two things must possess to be considered the same or unique -- and there is no commonly accepted percentage that can be used to determine this. You just kinda know. And that's opinion.
So can the question of sylvari uniqueness now be put to bed? I don't think that I proved it one way or another, but I hope that I showed that the argument itself has no merit because really, we're just arguing the validity of our opinions.
I am actually sure that one of the devs said he used to play DaoC in a video a while back, not sure which one though but it was a long one with a lot of talking.
Syl·van [sil-vuhn] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or inhabiting the woods.
2.
consisting of or abounding in woods or trees; wooded; woody: a shady, sylvan glade.
3.
made of trees, branches, boughs, etc.
Sylvan and sylvari is not really unique names and dryads are often called sylvan something in games like Magic the gathering. It makes sense and both names can be a coincident or not.
Nothing is truly unique in fantasy anymore but they are different enough for me at least.
I am not sure you quite understand what you are talking about. Fantasy often classifices as the science fiction when it comes to genres.
That said, fiction merely means the narrative is not based on any real world events. A story about a guy in New York who sells hotdogs could be considered Fiction if the person is a made up character along with the story arc.
For immersion to take place, especially when it comes to fiction, the elements need to make some sort of sense to the viewer/reader, or else you just end up alienated. This is why backstory and detailed design are important in fiction because they need to create the impression of "it could be real", if its too far fetched from how it is presented then it loses much of what makes the immersion factor occur.
In the movie Avatar, Neville Page had to literally create the creatures so they could realistically exist, with actual working bone structures, muscle and anatomy and all. This is what makes his creatures believable, better than others, even though they are just made up. That same attention to detail needs to apply to all fiction for it to be at its best. That is not so with this Sylvari race, which is clearly rediculous and over the top when it comes to any believability. Leaves have a purpose on a plant, you just dont grow them for no reason or decor. There is a saying that ignorance is bliss, which in part is true. The dumber you are, the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world as you wont notice as many alienating factors.
Furthermore, too much contrast in character and world design for any project is not a good thing. It is the antithesis of consistency. So when you have hardened grim looking races and world, suddenly intermingling with fruity exaggerated races and world, you get a contrast that leads to alienation and lack of consistency for belief. Tolkein did a good job at employing a wide range of characters and races, world and locations, while still maintaining the consistency and low contrast.
It feels like, from my point of view that is, that the GW2 production is getting slightly out of control and probably too far away from their GDD concept. This is a not so rare effect in certain game studios, it may come back to bite them in the end. As for character designs and world designs, they seem to have a few feature creeps that are not being hushed. Google "Feature Creep" to see what I mean when it comes to GW2 and its direction.
You'd be surprised, some particular adventures are much more enjoyable with humans
In general I just feel more at home with their animations and look in games, while animal races are quick to bother me with something hanging loose or stuff
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Sylvari look like homosexual plant elves. (No offense to homosexuals but elves and plant people are really lame) That is my honest impression of them. If I were a homosexual hippy LOTR groupie I would probably be extatic.
Agian, this isn't an insult to homosexuals or even hippies. LOTR groupies can kiss my *** though.
You know, it's funny you should say that...
http://www.arena.net/blog/the-sylvari-soul
I'll be making one or two myself.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Most people don't seem to feel alienated. Most people like what they see. Is it that you just don't like being in the minority that forces you to constantly beat this poor dead horse, or that you're just too self-superior to accept it?
Of course the leaves have a reason. They're there to roughly simulate human appearance. That wasn't hard to see. Huh. Guess you were too busy raging to notice that.
Also, ignorance doesn't equal stupidity. Surprised somebody who thinks they're so smart doesn't know that.
For one, we know you are already quite the fanboy for everything GW2. You are ultimately quite biased no matter what one says.
Secondly, you make quite a broad statement there which you can only somewhat tie to the people who use this forum, which is clearly a small niche. That said, I am basing off what results in alienation from actual behavioral science and how it is applied to not only games but entertainment in general. You can either respect my opinion or continue to play out the forum warrior role as you clearly do not like my opinion to begin with (fanboy bias).
As for beating a dead horse, I barely even talk about this on the forums outside 2 or 3 posts. Seems like you love to over exaggerate for the benefit of attempted belittlement. Please stop.
If you read the entire thread and why it was created, in addition to the subject regarding the leaves, I state quite clearly that they are being used solely for the cosmetics. You may have missed that fact. My point earlier was that I disagree with the use of parts which can be identified as something else as a means to just fluff and over sell a concept. Too much is not always a good thing. If you had a half human half robot race, and its ears were hydrolic tubes and its "hair" (or whats supposed to give the impression of hair) is long bolts and springs.... then it would be no different. A hydrolic system clearly does not equate the ears, no matter how "pretty" it looks (as its often an over used image to push mechanical imagery), and random bolts only make it less believable in the long run. How they are using the leaves and the varieties they come in from one plant is on the same level.
Furthermore, my use of the word dumb is accurate, it does not need to connote intelligence as you would have it. Stupidity is long associated with ignorance, yet if you flip it around you can state that ignorance is not necessarily stupid, which is somewhat subjective. Regardless, for you to go off on that choice of wording merely shows you have very little to argue about with my post and as a result would rather just go off on a tanget.
Please drop the attempts at belittlement because you do not like my opinion.
@Rabenwolf
Anthropomorphicism acted out by the generating tree.
That explains the humanish appearance.
This is NOT an evolved species - it is designed by a magic, sentient tree.
The creatures the tree has come into contact with oftentimes have a a certain type of clothing, hair pattern, facial proportions, etc. The tree was planted by a Human and a Centaur. Both of which have human traits.
So - the tree that is absorbing all these facts and is the one giving rise to the Sylvari takes all that into consideration and is inspired to make a beautiful synthesis of its traits and the traits of existing species with which it has already and possibly hopes to interact with in the future.
It makes sense - for 2 reasons -
1. If you are sending out a group of sentient creature to learn, live and grow in a world, why make them totally alien to that world. If you are interested in integrating, you take on the traits of the people you are infiltrating. It puts them more at ease than say making a race that is all spikes and has teeth instead of eyes. The Sylvari were created with an eye toward integration and are meant to appeal to those who did evolve in that world.
2. Like the Xians and other cults and mythologies, the fake gods they come up with are often very human in appearance. Look at the pictures of Yahweh, Zeus, Odin... The believers in these gods created their gods to look like them. Well, the tree out of an inverse version of that is making its race look like the people who planted and guided it. It is in homage.
Does that make enough sense for you?
The Avatar creatures evolved, like we did, so they have to make sense with the physics, chemistry, terrain, flora and fauna of their world. BUT the Sylvari are created. They get to follow whatever rules their designer wants to put in place.
Someone please make a good MMO.
Your point would only hold if the Sylvari as a race were evolved, rather than a case of intelligent design. Since they ARE intelligent design, cosmetic appearance holds on a lore level, as well as the creator level, because in both cases there is design involved. Now, if you want to talk about the hubris of deciding that a nigh-godlike being would choose to create things like a character designer would, well... I suppose that's a workable topic.
The plants in GW2 have definitely far surpassed Earth plants in just what they're able to do. They have mobility, magic abilities of their own, and are ridiculously durable. Even the plant monsters that just look like strange... giant plants are like this. Obviously the materials involved have far surpassed Earthly style plant parts.
On another, side note, talking about Avatar... while the character models were fairly well done, they should have hired somebody with a passing familiarity with jungle warfare tactics, because my personal ability to feel immersion in the movie was ruined whenever they bothered to have any sort of conflict between the natives and the humans. It just goes to show that immersion is a fragile thing, and even in something where you can find it in one place, it might be lacking horribly in another.
Also, there's two generally accepted definitions to dumb. An inability to speak, and stupidity... as in slow-witted and inability to understand (Rather than ignorance, which... you know what? You probably own a dictionary, actually. Go use it. I'm not going to explain basic meanings of words to you, even if you think you know what they mean, and don't.)
Calling somebody dumb is definitely an insult, so it's a little high handed of you to pass down that judgement upon all who disagree with you. I'm not belittling you (While you're clearly belittling everybody who disagrees with you), I'm asking for a little consistency in your use of English, and less insults.
Who cares about the lore or why they look like they do? The Sylvari are just ugly. Very atrocious.
Plant life has hair, bristles and other elements that would be better suited to match and serve as a functional purpose over leaves though.
In short, the lack of creativity and the iconic use of the leaf to insinuate everything nature like, results in an over use of them without any real purpose. Furthermore, there seems to be a lack of consistency in the designs of such creatures produced by the trees, much of which is clearly far from being "human". The end result is a bit of hypocrisy in design, therefore, as nice as your explaination is, it is still flawed. It is not your fault though, but those of the designers who were in charge of this particular race and local.
I can pretty much promise you that they sat in a meeting and said 1) what kind of people do we want to play this race 2) what would appeal to them and 3) what can we use to sell the image. In addition to the "feature creep" disease which exists within the game development field, the "re-design" is the most likely result. As a whole my opinion is that it would be better off if they toned down the walking veggie element quite a bit and sold the concept through story and interactivity more so than using a base human mesh and covering it with an over used icon.
Just my opinion, but losing humans and dwarves from a fantasy game.....GREAT idea. As long as there are also no orcs or elves, I'm sold. Shame they have to keep the humans for those who aren't creative or adventurous enough to roll something OTHER THAN what they are every day of their lives. Playing a human in a fantasy game has never made sense to me. It's just....stupid. Okay, maybe not stupid per se, but....just annoying....to ME anyway.
On topic:
I adore the sylvari.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent. It also assumes that a tree only knows about leaves. Any biomatter can take and form a shape to its liking, so using leaves for everything is utterly silly, just as much as creating genders for a genderless species.
Again you are going off on a tangent and yes as a means to belittle me. Clearly you are looking for something to rag on my post about, and its hardly on the subject at hand. I used the word dumb, I told you why, i also used the word ignorance. If you dont like those word choices, then too bad. You can disagree with it, but keep it to yourself or just let it go. Trying to tie it into a means to insult me is just pathetic on your part.
Furthermore I didnt call anyone dumb, check your reading comprehension. To insinuate I am attacking those who disagree with me when I just now started posting in this thread in any detail is silly and you know it. In fact I am not attacking anyone unless you consider detailed and open for discussion replies "attacking". I think you need to relax a little bit and take another look at these posts. You are too "up in arms" over nothing it seems, but thats just my perception.
If you continue to put meaning and intent where none existed, and continue these "attacks" or rather attempts at superiority, then this discussion is over. It serves no purpose and will only lead to a moderated thread.
And where did I say anything about the look of the Sylvari being different? In fact everything I pointed out that was different from the Sylvan is lore related! The fact that you think I am raging about your opinion and that I am fanboy, because I do not see eye to eye with your opinion is beyond funny. But great job at making a counter argument that deals with nothing that I said, I guess reading comprehension is overrated now.
Now if you want to prove me wrong and provide a counter argument to what I said, please provide me with a work of fantasy that has all the elements in a race that is in the Sylvari lore! But I guess that is too much to ask in a civilized discussion it is easier to call someone a fanboy and totally ignore what they said!
Thank you! Someone that actually looks at things from many different angles instead of their narrow viewpoint of how the world should work!
I do not mean to be rude, but when did you become the expert on race creation in all works of fantasy and science fiction? In fact the only thing I see here is an opinion being held up as fact that supposable surpasses the creators of said works! I do not ever remember anyone electing you chief race designer for the human race, where do you come off telling other people that their opinion on race design is wrong and your opinion is the only right one. Everything I have read here only points to you being a critic and not a creator, and I am sorry but no one in the long history of earth has cared what a critic said one hundred years after they are dead, while the creators become immortal!
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out howthe strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
"...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done." - Theodore Roosevelt
1. Using quotes as you have does not make an intellectual and or more valid reply.
2. Explain to me how making an observation that plants have more to them than just leaves (which include hair like extrusions as well), plus an over use of leaves to sell the design (which is obvious, its not an opinion) is some how me claiming to be an expert on race creation?
Please enlighten me as to how you have come to that conclusion from just that?
Honestly your conclusion is absolutely and utterly absurd, given that you essentially begin making things up and flavorfully creating an asnine narrative as a means of valid counter argument. Please explain to me your reasoning based off actual quotes of mine rather than your far off fictional interpretation?
I'll accept an apology if you ever choose to give one.
i was disappointed they did not go with the more alien looking concept art.
games are too scared to branch out and provide a quite different experience.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Everything in red is your opinion and not fact! With that you go out of your way to say it is a fact, and any other opinion is wrong, as if you are an expert and no one else’s opinion measures up to your intelligence and design process. You are not interesting in discussing the design or even seeing other people’s prospective on the design, you just keep stating how your opinion is fact and everyone else even the creators are wrong. Nowhere in any of this do you say this is just my opinion and I would have done the design differently! You just bluntly tell everyone how your opinion is fact and how they are all wrong and that the only intellectual position is yours.
Like I said I am not trying to be rude, but there is no discussion here, it is only you telling people how the design choices made are not that good and anyone with a different opinion is not intelligent enough to grasp it. This sounds like a critic to me!
Now if you actually want to have a discussion on the redesign, and not just keep sharing your opinion as facts that cannot be disputed, I would be interested in seeing what the community could create (and how other people would take that new look).
Seems like you dont know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact. For example, is what you are saying right now your opinion or a fact? You are stating it like a fact even though it is just your opinion.
You also selectively leave out the following explaination which clearly is important in decerning the difference between a blanket claim and an opinion with reasoning behind it.
An observation: Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this. Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme. This was posed as a question, which you ignore.
The second line contains the word IF, meaning its a hypothetical. So again, you missed the mark entirely.
This is all clearly my opinion mixed with some concrete details, this should be clear if you did not selectively pull pieces to try and fit your narrative.
You say I am not interested in discussing the design, but yet when have you bothered trying to discuss it with me? Your first post was a fancyful story you made up in an attempt to go after not the content but the author of the post. Not once did you even bother to try and start a dialog regarding the design or what I have actually said.
Again, nice try but no cigar. You project way too much. The more you type the more you come across as a delusional fanboy, and that is the antithesis of any intellectual discourse that would be preferable in this forum.
Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place.
Probably going to make a Sylvari warrior if the movements and gameplay looks nice.
Of course it is all my opinion and not fact, I know my opinion on art and lore is subjective to my tastes and I know other people will have different views.
“Over use of leaves to sell the design. You cannot logically argue with me on this. Every single picture of the Sylvari in game has them covered head to toe in both leaf textures and meshes. I make and have been trained in the creation of concept art and other game assets including that which is used alongside a design doc. The leaves, and there is no way to deny this, are there to sell the concept, the theme.”
How is what you said here a question, where in there do you ask for input? In fact you even have the comment you cannot logically argue with me on this, where in that phrase does that leave anything open to debate? You already said any other opinion besides this one is illogical, so where do we go from there?
Not true, in fact if this was intelligent design then the use of leaves is not very intelligent. It also assumes that a tree only knows about leaves. Any biomatter can take and form a shape to its liking, so using leaves for everything is utterly silly, just as much as creating genders for a genderless species.
OK then let’s look at your IF statement, and see the hypothetical statement yearning for discussion. Ok so you’re if statement is to say if this was hypothetical intelligent designer then the use of leaves in the design would not be intelligent. Furthermore using leaves in the design is silly, since biomatter can form itself to any shape, I hope you do not mind me paraphrasing. You are so right this IF statement leaves so much open to debate, let’s see if you like the way the designers used the leaves you just told us that design would not be used by intelligent designers. Definitely makes me think you have an open mind for discussion and makes me want to share my opinion so I can be told how my design is not intelligent. Then you go on to say that the designers could have done anything with the design, but of course not leaves because that is just silly. That definitely makes me think I should share my opinion again, since I know if you like the leaf design that is just silly!
And let’s see how you open this grand discussion of art, with an open and objective opinion in order to share ideas.
You start off by saying how over the top and ridicules the design is, and how ignorance is bliss. Because the dumber you are the more immersed you might get in an over the top fictional world like GW2 is. Then you go on to say how Tolkien did it right and how the GW2 developers should follow his lead. Then you end it with saying that from your point of view the art design is getting out of hand and might end up imploding on the GW2 designers.
OK now what part of that is open and inviting for the purpose of discussion art? The part where you say the art is ridicules and over the top and would only appeal to people that are dumb because they are stupid enough to get immersed in an over the top fictional world? Or how about your point of view that the art is out of control and might end up hurting the game in the long run. So tell me where in here is the open invitation to discuss the points we might like about the GW2 art, and not just the things we hate about it?
Oh I know where it is, it is when you call anyone that questions your opinion a GW2 fanboy! Or the complete dismissal of anyone else’s opinion of the design that does not match your own. Yep definitely from looking at the responses in this thread it is defiantly a call for a honest and open discussion on art design were everyone can be heard.
As for the last part“Furthermore, if you are offended by people giving critism for ART, especially when it is part of a PRODUCT, then you sir are in the wrong place."
I do not have any problem with people criticizing art and presenting their view on how they would do it, by either describing it or presenting a drawing of it. I do have a problem when people present a criticism and make it sound like the only valid opinion based on said art. And so far I have not seen one comment from you about the art but to say that your view is right, and the person you responded to is wrong!
I personally like the art; I enjoy the way the Sylvari appear in the video. But according to what you have said my view on art is unintelligent and just silly. But thankfully that is just your opinion, even though you like to present is as more than that!
Here is my view on the Sylvari; to view the Sylvari as a creation of a new being that just became self-aware and is learning and exploring the world around her. Is an interesting contrast when you normally look at a racial design by evolutionary traits, because to truly understand the design you have to wonder about the god that created it instead of the path of evolution that the race followed! When you look at the design of the leaves, flowers, and braches and the familiar shapes they create, you have to wonder about the thoughts that went through the creator upon creation. For example, you cannot help but wonder do the leaves that form a brow on a female Sylvari have special meaning to the creator? Is there emotion tied to the curve of a pedal? Does the god feel pride and love when she sees the curve of a branch? Then the one question that matters above all else, what does the answer to these questions tell me about myself. If I was that God what choices would I make when all options are present in front of me. Can I see myself in the virtues and the emotions crafted into the Sylvari, or is the illusion of life their God created more than myself?
Now let me guess your response is going to be about how the design is bad, and how it is subpar intellectual design for artist. That the use of leaves in the form of the Sylvari was a bad design choice for the artists at ANet, since matter can shape to any form, and using leaves is just silly. That ignorance is bliss and only dumb people can get immersed into a world full of such bad art design. Blah blah blah your opinion on the art is right and I am wrong and I just cannot see how bad the design choices are because I am GW2 fanboy! There you go I responded for you, you can consider me lectured on how true art should be view!
If they stay out in the sun too long, do they tan or need watering.
Nope.
Speaking of biases, that sword has two edges. Did you realize that or did they fail to cover it in Behavioural Sciences 101?