Talk:Golem

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

In the image, is the first character supposed to be a Golem too? Or is it just a representation of a man for size-comparison purposes? --User Pling sig.png pling | ggggg 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one is just a human for size reference. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That first golem from the right is sexy --MageUser MageMontu sig.pngMontu 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
indeed, i hope we will see most of these in gw2 - Wuhy User Wuhy sig.jpg 12:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Guys, I'm thinking that's just for the mission G.O.L.E.M., unless anyone has links proving otherwise this page should really be moved to "Golem", imo. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the final mission, the npc's are called GOLEM's as well. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
G.O.L.E.M. refers to a specific project, the golem NPCs in Oola's Lab don't use the acronym in their names. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Odd. I can see the inconsistency, but I don't see any reference to any specific project. In Destruction's Depths there are creatures designed by Oola with the name G.O.L.E.M. 2.0, but are just referred to as "golems" in dialogue, so it just looks like that's a more informal way of referring to them. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the move. -- pling User Pling sig.png 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

G.O.L.E.M. is just the scientific name(short for Genius Operated Living Enchanted Mechanism(without looking:D)) but a golem is also the kind of being it is so it's both ok to use I know this doesn't explain it very well but I don't know the words for it in English but both G.O.L.E.M. and golem are ok to use The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.11.187.98 (talkcontribs).

I'd like to bring this up again concerning the note on the page. It is to my understanding, that G.O.L.E.M. or "Genius-Operated Living Enchanted Manifestation" is just the name of the specific project the Asura worked on in Guild Wars 1 and the golems created in it. The reason those are called "golems" ingame would be, that they are indeed golems just like cars are vehicles, but not all golems are G.O.L.E.M.s in the same fashion as not all vehicles are cars. In this case the note is misleading as, while "golem" could be used as an acronym for G.O.L.E.M., it usually isn't. The reference linked gives no clear answer either, as nowhere in it is said, that golem means "G.O.L.E.M.", but only that the Asura created G.O.L.E.M.s, which they did in any case. While I know of no decisive evidence for either interpretation, I'd call the note speculative and thus would be in favor of removing or at least rewording it. Bernado 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
See gw1: Plaxx, gw1: G.O.L.E.M. 1.0, and gw1:G.O.L.E.M. 2.0. The meaning of G.O.L.E.M. is, as stated, "Genius Operated Living Enchanted Manifestation," but this is not really a name for a project (well, it was used for the name of a project, however it would be little different if it was "our robot project") but rather an object (see the two golem links). "Golem" is just easy-hand of G.O.L.E.M. (just as Mox is for gw1:M.O.X.). Furthermore, how Heron presents the real meaning isn't as a name of an project - he effectively says "These are the smack-talking creators of the “G.O.L.E.M.s” after all." If it were a single project name, then it shouldn't be pluralized, and they wouldn't be creators of it but rather those who did the project - said project in question being long past done.
Also, think: The blog linked is about Guild Wars 2, so why would it mention something solely about GW1? Konig/talk 10:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I do understand your theorie, but I think it's either wrong or at least unproven. As I said I believe the name applies not only to the project but also the specific golems you mentioned, which were created as a result of it. If the project is named after the golems or the other way around is not relevant in this case. Because of this it is possbile to pluralize G.O.L.E.M.. I'd think Prior's remark of the "G.O.L.E.M.s" was just there to illustrate how the Asura had something funny about them in GW 1 already and thus stay true to their character. Especially as the last paragraph is about how "some players", of which he probably thought as mainly GW veterans, may think the Asura are too much of a comic reliefe race now. This is why he mentioned something from GW 1.
On the other hand there are also inconsistencies, if you take "golem" as the simple form of "G.O.L.E.M.". Why would, I believe, 5 specific entities in the game be called "G.O.L.E.M." and all other golems just "[...] golem"? Why are they named the equivalent of "Golem 1.0", if there were many other golems before them? Mamp mentiones they would improve those specific golems and in Destruction Depths you meet the "G.O.L.E.M. 2.0", which again implies that G.O.L.E.M. is the name of those golems and why would you name a golem "golem"? Especially if you are as obsessed with technobabble as the Asura.
I don't even want to imply that it is impossible golem indeed means G.O.L.E.M., even though the other theorie feels that much smoother to me. But there is no decisive evidence for either side, arguments at best, and thus I'd suggest leaving the note as it is now and removing the part "technically G.O.L.E.M.s". Bernado 15:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a good point on why the other golems are not called G.O.L.E.M.s - to that, I can't answer except for a case of simplicity (hence "shorthand"). My primary issue with "it was just that one project" for what G.O.L.E.M. refers to is the meaning behind the name - it just doesn't sound like something that would be used for a project name (and its products) but really fits the entire golem idea (though maybe that was the point). You do have a point, and it is valid, but I feel that it's more likely we'll see a character named Odran in GW2 - personal opinion though. Konig/talk 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
So I take it we agree that it is not certain wether G.O.L.E.M. is the correct form of golem or the name of a certain kind of golem. I changed the page in a way that it leaves the decision on that matter to the reader. Bernado 21:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that Oola created golems quite some time before the G.O.L.E.M. project, I disagree that it's the 'correct spelling' of golem. G.O.L.E.M. was merely a large project that involved golems. 80.112.180.46 12:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Spinning Attack[edit]

I saw on the Arena blog that Golems may have a spinning attack. Heron Prior siad it, heres the link: ArenaBlog --User Magican Signature Empathy.jpg Magican talk 07:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

true it's in the trailer --The Holy Dragons 07:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?[edit]

Every Golem is powered by an energy source? A cataclyst/crystal that contains strong magic. Reference for this is GoA, obviously. - Infinite - talk 05:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Any automaton needs a power source and / or fuel. That the magical Asura have, as usual, done things with magic is rather to be expected. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 12:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Dont think we'd need to unless the power source was special like The Golems Eye. Link6267 14:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
This has been known long before GoA - it's blantantly stated in Eye of the North. @AFK: Utilizing power crystals instead of more normal energy is what makes these golems unique, actually. They're, quite literally, (at least in GW1) made of rock and plantlife. Probably changes for GW2 though. -- Konig/talk 23:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I'm wondering why it's not mentioned. Just magic is rather obscure, compared to what information we have at hand. Shall I just edit it in, then (or anyone else)? - Infinite - talk 10:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I would of, but I couldn't really find a place it would make sense in discussing. -- Konig/talk 19:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It's natural progession. In a matter of centuries something (how golems are powered) has changed and what it has changed to is the race of Asura using magic (just like they do for everything else). I don't see why the design of golems hundreds of years ago is relevant in the slightest. Please don't create a trend of pointing out the obvious. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 20:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Golems being powered by powerstones has not changed, this is pointed out in GoA. What could of changed would be the materials for the rest of the golems. Thus far, to our knowledge, Asuran golems are the only construct to be needing a power conductor (the rest are just "magically powered" with no equivalent to a battery) and is the only construct to utilize a crystal as it's power conductor. Excluding gw1:Shiro'kens aka soul binders which, as the name implies, utilizes a soul via the gw1:Soul Stones - though those are not crystals. -- Konig/talk 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback 2016/04/13[edit]

needs new golems from HoT e.g. rata novus Cronos (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Request fulfilled. Thanks. --Cronos (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)