Talk:Great Giant

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Questioning their possible appearance[edit]

Did Ree say in her interview that the giants would make appearances or did she say there was lore tied in to the giganticus lupicus? Denetah 21:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Giants will make an appearance but not giganticus lupicus.
Giganticus lupicus lore will also appear. ~Angel~ --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
I read the article again. Looks like I misinterpreted it, sorry for wasting your time with that appearance thing. Mediggo 00:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
All good by me, my ears personally are not what they used to be. Although tbh I wouldnt mind at all seeing a live Giganticus Lupicus walking around maybe as part of a dynamic event Denetah 00:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If those skeletons we see in GW1 really are GL, there's no way a GL would have lived 11,000 years without being known to still be alive.
Unless it was like the ED, I guess. Konig/talk 00:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's ALIVE!!![edit]

Hiding in Arah. Tough bastard too, my party got demoralized and retreated shamefully, after a 4 hour struggle. Gaudy Gourd God 10:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision notes[edit]

  1. Giganticus Lupicus would be the more official name for the species (to call their species Great/True Giants would be like calling jotun giants)
  2. They didn't live before records began, but before modern records of history
  3. Actually, they're just said to have disappeared during approximately 10,000 BE; and they went extinct during the last Elder Dragon rise according to the Durmand Priory. There's small evidence to indicate the last ED rise was, in fact, in approximately 2,000-1,000 BE (during Bad Blood Sieran mentions "The dwarven civilization lasted for more than two thousand years" - if the last ED rise was 10,000 BE, it's mighty weird for Sieran to say their civilization lasted over 2,000 years (placing it at "older than 675 BE"), rather than over 10,000 years since if 10,000 BE was the last ED rise, it'd be 11,000 years ago; ergo, her line indicates the ED rise would be 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, approximately). In the end, the only facts we have is 1) Timelines state they disappeared from Tyria (the continent) in approximately 10,000 BE, and 2) that, according to the Priory, they went extinct in the last ED rise. This means they merely left the continent in 10,000 BE but could have survived elsewhere in the world until the last rise - whenever this was.
  4. Nothing among the DP's discoveries put doubt on the claim of their extinction. That Giganticus Lupicus might have been corrupted and hibernating since the last rise, much like the Great Destroyer and Drakkar. As such, the entire second paragraph is speculation. Konig/talk 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. That would be nothing like calling the jotun giants. "Giganticus Lupicus" is the scholarly name (i.e. not the most common one in-universe) and should be placed second. The lowercase and italics is just for fun - that's a fairly standard format for species names, which GL is clearly a nod to.
  2. Placing "modern" before the word "records" would have sufficed.
  3. I don't really care about what theory you have on when the ED last awoke. It's commonly accepted to be 10,000 years ago, and I'm sure there's some in-game source that corroborates that as well. And I'm sure you could have reflected that without changing the entire wording of that sentence, which is now pretty painful to read.
  4. Does the GL look like it's been dead for 10,000 years? I am doubting that they were truly extinct, therefore doubt has been cast. To say that doesn't necessarily rule out the fact that they were extinct, just that they might not have been. With the appearance of the GL in-game, it is now speculation to say that they are extinct.
Today, I took the time to improve a Bad Article that was important to the wiki, and as soon as you saw it you decided to remove a chunk of my contribution and rewrite the rest. With the time it took you to remove a chunk of my contribution and write "revision notes" over four times the length of the removed content, you could have expanded an article similarly in-need of help. I am struggling to remain civil here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
For no.1, "Giganticus Lupicus" is probably more well known to players because that's what the NPC is called. It's also the name of the article. People interested in lore (GW1 especially) probably know it better by that name, too. I think it makes more sense to keep that name first. pling User Pling sig.png 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) 1 Great/True Giants is merely a descriptive name and is not the race's name. As such we should go with what's most commonly used in the game - which is Giganticus Lupicus, believe it or not.
3 Commonly accepted is not the same as correct. For instance, it was commonly accepted that Grenth overthrew Dhuum in the Underworld - this was wrong. All in-game mentions merely state "the Giganticus Lupicus went extinct during the last rise of the Elder Dragons" - this rise, we hold no date for. I presented my theory as a possible alternative to the "commonly accepted" belief, merely to show that what's commonly accepted might be wrong. And sadly, I don't think I could have. If I did, it would read as "Virtually nothing is known of their physiology, their culture or their history, only that their disappearance was around 10,000 BE, and they went extinct during the last Elder Dragon rise." at best. However, I wanted to denote the uncertainty of that last bit - since the only source is the conclusion the Priory came to.
4 Does the Orrian undead look like they're 250 years old? No. And did you not pay attention to anything I said? Nothing says the Giganticus Lupicus went extinct in approx. 10,000 BE (which would be 11,000 years btw). As I said, the date 10,000 BE is given to their disappearance so we are in agreement - we both doubt that they went extinct at that time. And how does the presence of a single undead prove the race isn't extinct? It's dead.
That chunk of your work was speculation, proclaiming that the presence of a single moving corpse proves the race isn't extinct. Konig/talk 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is a wild idea then, reword (the rest to be understood) "... Giganticus Lupicus went extinct" to "... Giganticus Lupicus believed to have gone extinct." or presumed, or whatever, spell it however the proper spelling is for these words. 04:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest note[edit]

"Some of the giant bones we see in the Crystal Desert might actually belong to dead Elder Dragons instead of Giganticus Lupicus. It would make sense that a titanic battle between the two factions would lead to causality from both sides. Jeff Grubb confirmed in a GuildMag interview that only some of the bones in the Crystal Desert belongs to Giganticus Lupicus." I removed this note because it has no place on this page. It is the author's theory. We haven't seen any giant bones in the Crystal Desert. That was GW1, and that particular point of lore has not been revisited in GW2. Those bones may no longer be there, and they may have been retconned. There's been nothing to suggest that there are dead Elder Dragons, and even if there were, the bones in GW1 are far too small to be anything like the Elder Dragons we've seen. There's no evidence that there was a "titanic battle", or that GL had the strength or numbers to put up a fight, only that GL went extinct around the time Elder Dragons were active. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with removing the "it may be Elder Dragons instead" bit, we *do* have recent confirmation that at least some of the Crystal Desert bones belong to the Giganticus Lupicus - see here. So they were not retconned, per se. The more draconian skulls may belong to dragon champions or an ancient race of dragons (as Glint was a corrupted lifeform), but that's all speculative. What is fact is that those CD bones currently are to be considered Giganticus Lupicus bones. Konig 03:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit: I'll be editing the article to include current information and remove speculation - the interview also answers, somewhat, the situation of the Arah GL being so small. Konig 03:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit2: Done. Konig 03:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

article swap[edit]

I want to propose swapping this article with [[Giganticus Lupicus (NPC)]], so that the article about the thing you can actually find in GW2 has the prime location. It doesn't really make sense that the lore article, which is only relevant to a small portion of players who are actually interested in it (myself included), should have the prime location, while a bestiary article with important gameplay strategy is relegated to a qualifier. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. Psycho Robot (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It has always been that races and groups get the forefront of article priority compared to NPC articles. I see no need to create an inconsistency just to remove a single click and loading. Konig 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add that the primary point of a race or group article isn't lore, though that often takes the bulk of such articles, but navigation amongst like-grouped individuals. While now there is but one Giganticus Luoicus NPC, it is not necessarily the only one that will be. This said, the only way I'll agree to a swap is if the race article is renamed to "Great Giant" or another 'layman term' for the race. But I highly disagree with such a move nonetheless. Konig 17:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
But why should the race be first? Consider from the point of view of players: they don't give a crap about the lore about the race, they care about the boss that they are going to encounter. If there are any race articles that have the main location, versus an actual npc that players can encounter, I would say those should be moved too. The main article should always be what players are going to care the most about. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support the move. Naming conventions should always serve the reader first. I agree with everything that Dr Ishmael wrote above: the primary article (found via search) should be about the foe that everyone is looking for & that only a small portion of players are interested in lore generally. (And yes, I'm lumping "race and group" articles into lore, since, like many players, that's a term I use for details that flesh out the game world and have little to do with gameplay or mechanics.)
I don't care all that much about what the race article is called, but it seems to me that "Gianticus Lupicus" is used more often in-game and it's the one that people are more familiar with. Regardless, let's just make things easier on the majority now and then we can rename the racial/group article later if that turns out to be important. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I suggested a while ago we [[Talk:Giganticus_Lupicus_(NPC)#Merge|merge]] the two articles - the thing is the last of its species anyway. We can learn about mechanics and lore at the same time! *balloons* I'll shut up if that still seems like a stupid idea to everyone, but it does seem to solve all the problems that everyone's brought up here. If they add another GL to the game later (unlikely, if you ask me), we can worry about how to deal with that then. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think merging them is a good idea, because it goes against the concept of granularity. Players looking to find information on fighting GL can come to the npc article, and players looking to find info on the race in general can come to the race article. There's no compelling reason that they should be combined, and an argument can be made for keeping them separate, because players looking for info on the npc aren't necessarily going to care about the race and will find info about the race unhelpful and distracting, and vice versa. In light of that, its easier for everyone to have them split. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
On Konig's point that race articles are to group NPCs articles together, Giganticus Lupicus is only a race in lore and therefore an exception to the rule. Moving the article would not be inconsistent with that.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Psyche: "Consider from the point of view of players: they don't give a crap about the lore about the race, they care about the boss that they are going to encounter." And like I said, race articles are more about groupings and providing a means to search for multiples of a race and/or group without going through Categories. This is for the point of the reader. Now let me give you an example: What if in a near future update, we get a second Giganticus Lupicus NPC - it may not be named such, but people will be able to tell what it is and may still search "Giganticus Lupicus." But they'll be getting the Arah boss. Again - race articles are meant to be hub articles, they just happen to feature a good deal of lore because it's the best place to put lore of the races. But their original purpose is to act as hub articles.
@TEF: Actually, race and groups - or the internal terms of "family" and "army" - are highly game mechanical. It is what determines things like Sigil of Demon Slaying to work on specific foes. It's because of this mechanical implementation that Flame Legion slaying and dredge slaying doesn't work on Molten Alliance (Anet created a brand new army for them, which cancels out the mechanical Flame Legion and Dredge armies). This said though, the GL (NPC)'s family and army are both "Risen".
@Santax: Except that it's not really a survivor, and mixing the race and individual is a very poor action, because it causes confusion in the notion that few others are part of it - more so if there's multiple NPCs of the grouping. And for a side: The Priory thinks there's more out there, unknown to them. But that's irrelevant in this matter since we're not discussing lore, we're discussing reader easibility and management/organization logic.
@Relyk: As things stand, true. Now I ask this: if the race became more common in the future, would you argue the opposite? Yes, that's a question on hypotheticals, so let me alter the question. All races are, except for the army and family connotations mentioned above, merely lore. The race articles, however, are meant to be hub-articles. If there's an NPC out there titled "Human", and said NPC happens to become a very important figure, should that NPC take president over the current article Human? Due to the sheer amount of NPCs of the race, player races don't feature a list of NPCs, thus are not hub articles so they are in the truest sense "lore articles." Should, then, this lore article become subsidiary to the NPC called Human? It is the same argument for the Giganticus Lupicus here, but even less so because this article is a hub-article. You're just one click away from [[Giganticus Lupicus (NPC)]] and if you type out "Giganticus Lupicus" into the search box, you will get suggestions and one will be the NPC article. But in the example I gave above, in which your and ishmael's argument would be to make the NPC the main article, you would not be one-click away. Yet I feel certain that you would argue to keep the race as the main article. Konig 21:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's worry about consistency with the Human article once Giganticus Lupicus becomes a playable race. -- Dagger (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that collides with moving the race article to "Giganticus Lupicus (race)" or seeking an alternative name, it's still a race article. I agree you can make the argument that we build from race to individual NPCs in so much as it being a guideline rather than a policy. For cases like "Human", race is justified by the fact that human can refer to any NPC in the human race. It is much more likely that someone is seeking information on the race article than the NPC article, possibly to navigate to individual human NPC articles. That should be the only precedence for the practice of disambiguating articles. We have an opposite case where it is more likely someone is seeking information on the NPC article than the race article and the race article does not provide navigation to individual articles because there is only one. That seems to be a very strong argument to move with the addendum that the issue can be revisited in the future if this ever wasn't the case.--Relyk ~ talk < 00:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Even if a million more GL come out, I will maintain that the main article for the phrase "Giganticus Lupicus" should be for the npc. Players searching that phrase are still far more likely to be looking for information about the boss than the race. If they were looking for other members of the GL race, they would search for those names. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
^ This. Always keep in mind what the majority of the players will be looking for, and how to keep the searches useful to them. Articles with no information aside from lore should be subpages or have different tags, but a boss in a dungeon should trump a short lore article that's half speculation/notes anyway. I definitely support a swap. -Auron 00:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)