
(10-01-2014, 04:54 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: I'm with Erik in regards to 1.0. I think by creating a separation between 1.0 lore and 2.0 lore we will be promoting a lore source that dismisses 1.0 facts. We already have enough people challenging 1.0 lore by saying "yeah well this is 2.0, it's not the same game!" When, it is, in fact, the same game from a lore perspective. The game itself references 1.0 lore all the time and (most importantly) refers to how something from 1.0 may have changed in 2.0 because of the Calamity.
From a purely roleplaying perspective, everyone here roleplays a character over 5 years old. So pre-Calamity (1.0) lore facts are pertinent to everyone here and they should (IMO) be treated as canon until proven otherwise. A good example is the Central Thanalan S-rank, Brontes. If you talk to the Hunter-scholar about Brontes, she'll tell you that he belonged to a pair of cyclopes that were captured on Vylbrand and sold to an Ul'dahn circus. Welllllllll in 1.0, players participated in a levequest called "Operation Crosseye" in which we brought those two cyclopes down.
From my own research, I've only found one case in which lore was actually retconned by SE. This, of course, was when Conjurers were stripped of Fire, Thunder, and Ice elemental spells to accommodate the introduction of Black Mage and War of the Magi lore stating that early Magi used fire to survive the Age of Endless Frost. However, this was a retcon that happened in 1.0. I have found no other hard retcons between 1.0 and 2.0 lore. There is a whole lot of missing lore (lore that was expressed in 1.0 but has not yet been expressed in 2.0), but not retconned lore (lore from 2.0 that states 1.0 lore to not be true).
Here here, I mean, even the Calamity itself could be considered 1.0 lore. I myself use various points from my 1.0 character that was eaten before Erik and my new account came along. Despite it being a terrible game in many ways, the Lore was rich, and in some cases richer then 2.whatever lore has been.