Talk:Giganticus Lupicus

Source

In which quest where they actually mentioned? Reaper of Scythes Talk 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They aren't mentioned in the game, only in the Prophecies manual and The Movement of the World. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just being pedantic, but the scientific name would have to be Giganticus lupicus -- the second part to the name, the specific epithet -- is never (ever) capitalized by biologists, only the first part, the genus. Normally, too, both parts would be italicized, so more correctly, Giganticus lupicus.

Sounds cool. I wanna see one... an alive one. I know they are supposedly extinct but anything is possible in fantasy!Roflmaomgz 11:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In New GW2 Video

You can see a living giant in the new concept art video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0PWUBOdzmI It's exactly 5 minutes in. -Ninjatek 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Eeeehhh... I'm gonna say that's probably an intentional optical illusion. I can't decipher if the rubble in the foreground is very large or not, but chances are it' pretty small. Furthermore, the GuildWars equivalent of Giganta [1] doesn't seem to pair up with any of the skeletal remains found throughout Tyria. --Knux 11:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Definably not a Giganticus Lupicus if the giant skeletons really are the GL (note: Nothing actually states that the skeletons are GL, just that they're very likely to be them and there's nothing else stated that they could be), as the GL are far from humanoid. If that thing is really a giant, and not an optical illusion, then it would be a normal, albeit huge, giant, which are far more humanoid. -- Konig/talk 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct Quote from 1 of the 2 head writers: "Giants do exist. You see them in Nightfall and in Prophecies, and they exist in Guild Wars 2. There’s a couple of different types of giants that we’ve added in, like the cyclops that you see. They’re not the same as the ‘Giganticus Lupicus’ or the ‘Great Giants’, references to those do exist in the game and we’re leaving it to players to find it." ...So yes there will be more explorables where we may find either more Skeletons or information on the Great Giants but no; the Giants themsevles aren't "returning to life" in GW2. --ilr 20:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Link with Elder Dragons

Maybe Giganticus Lupics = Elder Dragons ? Joeyw 20:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Although the cause of their extinction has not been confirmed, The Movement of the World implies that it may have been caused by the Ancient Dragons." Don't think so! Life Guardian 20:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There's really no implication of the Elder Dragons being the cause of their extinction. The line merely says that the Elder Dragon are as old as the Giganticus Lupicus (and possibly older) and that they go into cycles of being awake and not. -- Konig/talk 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually just posted this (see: I put it to you...) over on an unofficial wiki, but I think it fits this line of questioning. I would go as far as to say that the Giganticus Lupicus became the Elder Dragons conceptually. If what I have written below rings true then, it's possible that the Elder Dragons play the part in GW2 that the Giganticus Lupicus were going to play in GW:Utopia, seeing as a lot of the concepts were reworked to put into GW2.203.214.89.131 13:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I put it to you...

This has been reposted from http://www.guildwiki.org/Talk:Giganticus_Lupicus, I just felt that it fit the conversation in the above section about a link to the Elder Dragons.

Hi this hasn't been brought up here and it's pure speculation, but speculation based on observation.

The Guild Wars official Wiki and the Guild Wars 2 Official Wiki talks about the "True Giants". on the Guild Wars offical Wiki it states:

"The giant skeletons located throughout the Desolation, Crystal Desert, Ascalon, Shiverpeak Mountains, Charr Homelands, and Tarnished Coast are suspected to be the remains of the Giganticus Lupicus."

This is believed to be these: http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1862/giant60yx.jpg

Many refer to these as fish bones, and this would make sense that they would be fish bones seeing as we know that the Crystal Desert was once an ocean. However, I don't think they are fish bones in the slightest, to me they look more like serpents. The term Giganticus Lupicus CANNOT translate to Ravenous Fish. Ravenous Fish is Pisces rapaces. Giganticus Lupicus can only mean one thing, and that is Gigantic Wolf. So that's possibly the answer, we are looking for Giant Wolf bones. No? Because I've never seen them. So maybe we can assume that the name was not chosen because it was a latin translation, but instead was just a cool sounding name. The only bones that we can properly associate to the "True Giants" is the bone we have in the above picture.

So lets go from what they look like rather than what they should look like based on the obviously misdirectional name.

Big serpents, older than the Forgotten ones. Some speculated that they were the first race on the face of the world, maybe even the ones that formed the world (not necessarily built the world, but formed the lay of the land). A lot of this information was given like hints, with no detail, almost as if it was going to have some significance, maybe in an other chapter of the game.

It took me less than 5 minutes to go through the concept art for GW:Utopia, before I found this: http://dougbot.com/forum/GWXPostUno023.jpg

In Guild Wars Utopia, the emphasis was going to be on Aztec-Mayan looking culture. So lets mix and mangle the belief systems of the other real Life peoples from the Pre-colony Americas. The Mayans believed in the Feathered Serpent God Quetzalcoatl. The Mayan, Aztec and Toltec religions speak of the Giants. Ancient beings that some hold to have been the builders of their pyramids, and others believe is what the Mayan Calendar is counting down to.

So I put it to you that the True Giants are indeed these giant "fish bones" and are also the creature that is depicted int hat concept artwork. Whether the race that was to be revealed in GW:Utopia were going to be praising or fearing the True Giants, it seems logical that these things link together and maybe there was a single survivor of the giants, that would some how feature in the story of GW:Utopia.

I'm only showing you what I have discovered, it's up to you to make your own decisions on this vague and flexible topic, but for me I'm convinced that the True Giants, who ever they were, whatever they did, what ever their motivations, they were these flying serpents.

Thanks for reading! 203.214.89.131 13:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Bring this to a forum, fansite, or your own user-page (once you create an account) if you wish to create a discussion on this topic. This wiki is not designed for such a thing, nor is it within the scope of this article. G R E E N E R 02:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you are talking about, this wiki is designed with a discussion feature, it's not a fanfiction, and this is my own research and observation, on the Giganticus Lupicus. My observations are just as valid as anyone who has posted before me, about what the Giganticus Lupicus actually are. The only difference I see between my speculation and the speculation that EVERYONE else has posted here, is mine has reasoning.124.171.207.246 05:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That last line is a bit egotistical (and incorrect - both in that you're the only one who uses reasoning and certain things you state yourself. For instance, fish do not have bones (they have cartilage-made skeletons) - no one that I've seen has speculated they created the world; also, Anet almost never references the same thing multiple times and Quetzalcoatl has related concept art (feathered creatures not giants).). I would also like to point out one major flaw in your speculation: The initial/main story for GW2 (that is, the Elder Dragons) was made while making Utopia and Utopia was stopped for such. Honestly, if one were to look through the Utopia concept art, and the history of Utopia, it's clear that part of the story was the Tenneks - which evolved into the Destroyers. To say yours is the only one to use reasoning is most certainly is wrong. I could go on about stuff not listed in the Utopia page - statements only placed via reasoning - but I'd rather not delve into a huge debate over nothing - everyone's entitled to their opinion and we'll never know the answer so it'd be pointless to speculate on the story of Utopia.

As to what Greener means - the discussion pages are meant to discuss the content of the articles, according to recent discussions at least, and that speculation is not what they're meant for - speculation should, in turn, be placed on fansites. -- Konig/talk 06:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not egotistical at all, I am the only one who has demonstrated my resoning...

"Maybe Giganticus Lupics = Elder Dragons ?" There is no demonstrated reasoning behind what makes him think that, I have shown my links and attempted to explain my reasoning. So that not egotistical in the slightest, it's just a fact.

As for the fish bones. I have on more than one occasion on more than one forum, heard these called "fish bones" I know full well that fish don't have bones in the literal sense, but at the end of the day you forget that this is a fantasy game, anything is possible, so don't get ahead of yourself. If you even paid half the attention that you should have to be able to make such a rebuking post, then you would have noticed the link to the original post. Where there is a discussion concerning the name Giganticus Lupicus, and someone has mistranslated it as Ravenous Fish, hence my comment that it doesn't translate as such, and these are NOT fish bones.

As for the rest of it... it really doesn't matter. I concede that this is for article discussion, I can't argue that, and not speculation, but might I point out that if this is the case, then you have the same attitude towards others who speculate. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.171.207.246 (talk).

"I am the only one who has demonstrated my resoning..." No, you're not. Maybe on the wikis, since their discussion pages aren't meant for speculation, but people have made such theories - among many others related to both the Giganticus Lupicus and the Elder Dragons - on the various fan forums. And I've never seen the term "fish bone" been used before and I've been around on both Gurus and GWO for a while now (and have looked through many old threads), and the closest I've seen is assumptions that they were amphibious based on the tusked skulls - I also highly doubt that the tusked skull is fish-like. It looks closer to a Mammoth's to me personally. And I'm not sure what attitude you're referring to. Personally I find the "no speculation" rule silly and can't help but rebuke some things - I just limited myself and thus didn't go into as much detail as I could, purely due to the rule. -- Konig/talk 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Remaking the Past

I think it would be interesting indeed if someone would gather clips of the various skeletons scattered around and maybe get enough of the pieces to fit them together and make a full body model of one, then we can flesh it out and make an accurate as can be model of what these things used to look like (still would rather they just include more lore about it or let us see a living one). I already began cataloguing several of the more complete skeletons I found throughout the game but tis gonna take a long time to sort it all out then piece together a complete model. Might be beyond my skills to do, but I'm gonna try anyway. Nay the One and Only 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Impossible to do. We only have spines, skulls, and some long bones (which could be arms, legs, or whatever) - we have no ribcages, no hips, no shoulder blades, nowhere that said arm/leg bones can go, no hands/feet (if they had hands), etc. Without those, all you get is a head and spinal cord which can't even tell you the position that they stood in (all fours, upright, hunched over... belly up). Konig/talk 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Then make several models.... :p 66.56.156.136 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo

In the interest of lore and presentation typical of species pages, I had added a screenshot of crystal desert bones (A skull, as this would give a fair representation of comparative size) which has since been reverted (and deleted), citing GW2 wiki having confirmed that the bones are not of the species.

This is untrue (the GW2 article suggests that the risen Giganticus Lupicus is a juvenile, and states that the GW.dat originally intended these bones to represent the remains of the species). Agreed that there must be numerous screenshots to choose from for the remains, but one of them should appear on this page, as these were originally intended to be the Giganticus Lupicus, and referring to GW2 is a matter of future tense, which we, as GW1 players would not know of in the game's timeframe.

There are MANY examples in the real world to draw upon, where acheaologists and historians have either intentionally fabricated, or accidentally misidentified (with all possible legitimate resources) remains...and in the context of GW1 lore, these bones are accepted to be the actual remains of Giganticus Lupicus within this timeframe.

Should we not allow users to believe this, and decide for themselves from the sketchy data available, should they choose to move to GW2? Gwynna Vive (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to actually suggest those bones - of which there are three kinds, with two differing skulls - are Giganticus Lupicus bones. Nor is there anything to suggest that the gw2 GL is juvenile. Furthermore, the gw1 skulls are not canine like in the least. One has tusks and more akin to an elephant than dog, and the other is more serpentine, however the gw2 GL is very clearly canine - and a cyborg to boot - without tusks.

And fyi, in the context of lore, these bones are never once, EVER mentioned. Nothing but *player* speculation suggests them to be GL bones. Konig 12:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Konig, I don't believe I have been understood. I am aware that the bones scattered throughout the desert are from various species, including large serpents, giants, humanoids, drakes, and various others. The majority of the large remains are most likely some sort of Junundu or other wurm. I didn't say that the lore mentions the bones. The featured article on "Lore" references the creature, which in turn references the bones (correctly or not). Certainly player speculation suggests that these bones were once Giganticus Lupicus, and in fact, the gw.dat file confirms that they were intended to be the creature's remains. Nowhere, on either wiki, does it say that the GW2 Giganticus Lupicus or any of the species are Canids...only that the GW2 creature's head resembles a Jackal (and being a construct, we cannot acurately state that the lupine features are even "original equipment" without further data to draw upon). The species' name is merely "Dog Latin" (mimics Latin) and would most likely mean something to the effect of 'huge wolf-like beast", and I do not doubt that the creature is likely related to some form of canine. At any rate, there seems to be no reasoning that isn't directly derived from the future tense (GW2) that disputes these remains being of the Giganticus Lupicus, and from that perspective, as we have done with other pages, we should avoid drawing from GW2 for this page, for the same reasons...a GuildWars character would not encounter a living/reanimated Giganticus Lupicus. The link to GW2 wiki is sufficient to allow players to choose to see what the future holds. Gwynna Vive (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You said "in the context of GW1 lore, these bones are accepted to be the actual remains of Giganticus Lupicus within this timeframe" which is quite untrue and what I was talking about. You never mentioned the GWW's Lore article previously. So you did say that the lore mentions the bone, whether you meant to say that or not. Regardlessly, the gw.dat in fact does not "confirm" any such thing. There's mention of The Lupicus Boneyard, but the picture there is player speculation as to where said location is. There is absolutely nothing that even says the location is in the game, just that it was intended to be. Hence the tag note on the article.

I think you can clearly see that the Gignaticus Lupicus are canines simply by what it looks like in GW2. To argue that the Giganticus Lupicus is a construct and that we cannot be certain that its the original appearance is rather foolhardy. If you observe the body, which I have, you will find it to be rotten but seamless, as well as being cyborized. To claim that the head on the G-Lupe in GW2 is not a Giganticus Lupicus' head like you seem to be doing is rather silly, imo. And yes, it's my opinion, but the argument would be little different than saying that Courier Torivos was a human who had a bull's head stitched onto his body postmortem. There's nothing to really indicate it or imply it, nor should one really believe such - let alone let such beliefs dictate what goes on the wiki. The wiki isn't for speculation, it's for fact.

"there seems to be no reasoning that isn't directly derived from the future tense (GW2) that disputes these remains being of the Giganticus Lupicus, and from that perspective, as we have done with other pages, we should avoid drawing from GW2 for this page" THat's fine. Lets do that. It remains the same - these bones are not proven or implied in any way, shape, or form from the game itself - even the gw.dat - to be G-Lupe bones. Besides, what you said is wrong - Abaddon, Sohothin, Magdaer, Dhuum, and a few other articles have been given GW2 lore in the main body, and many others, such as Prince Rurik, Captain Greywind, Khrysten, Alesia and more in the form of Trivia. This is the same case as the latter, where notes and trivia coming from GW2 is put, in this case to disprove common player notion.

If it is not stated in lore - which it isn't, and there's no evidence to support your claim that the bones were intended to be G-Lupe remains (that gw.dat could have been made with the intention of making large humanoid canine remains for Nightfall that got scrapped) - then we shouldn't mislead players in saying it is. This is not the same situation as, for example, Bloodstone.

Though personally, I find it silly to separate the lore between the two. I get not including things not directly related to GW1 and GW1 topics, but I see no reason why we should intentionally mislead players into believing something that we now know is false. Konig 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT TAKE THAT TONE WITH ME! You are reading only what you want to see, then getting upset and trying to tell me what I said. This is not the first time you have "blown a gasket" in regard to GW2 references, and I will not play scapegoat for your tantrums. You've made it clear that you find it silly, but there are two wiki, for two different games, live with it. The photo posted was titled "suspected giganticus lupicus remains". The remains are mentioned in the page, and that makes a screenshot of the bones relevant. I made no implication whatsoever that they were GL. It was evident in the page, that the bones were not actually the remains as well. With respect to GW2, and it's wiki page, about GL being a construct, it was YOU that called it a "cyborg" (look that term up if you do not understand it...the term is not used on the GW2W page, and it is you assumption that it is a canine and a cyborg). I'm not about to argue about what is fact or not in a fictitious lore, that has been altered on a few occasions to fit the storyline...read the GW2W article and go argue about it there (or are you still banned?), as that is where the "facts" are, that I have drawn upon to state 1) that there is nothing to prove that GL is any sort of canine (again, I don't doubt that it could be, and your assumptions are likely correct...but that does not make them fact), and 2) that the GW.dat confirms that the bones are GL (and this was subsequently altered to suit the storyline...see GW2W "Notes" re: "juvenile" and "retcon" hypothesis). Stop putting words in my mouth and then arguing with me about what you think I said. With that, I am going to stop wasting my time discussing anything with you...sorry I have vandalized YOUR wiki with a screenshot that you had to delete immediately because it contradicted your misbegotten beliefs. Most people with a hint of respect would have at least discussed the matter beforehand, but I guess you've lost that argument before, and apparently cannot accept that this is not your personal webspace, so I should stop interferring with my useless contributions...would that suit you? It is apparently a total waste of my time to contribute, so long as people with obvious political agendas simply "speedy delete" them. Frankly, your beligerent attitude makes me feel VERY unwelcome and unappreciated, and I find I am beginning to not enjoy being a part of a community that includes you, so perhaps I can allow you to feel better by simply leaving? Gwynna Vive (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"DO NOT TAKE THAT TONE WITH ME! You are reading only what you want to see, then getting upset and trying to tell me what I said." I quoted you, word for word. What you say may not be what you mean, but it is what you said. I held no tone, and no tantrum (you're the only one with a tantrum at the moment by all indications of caps) with you and if you're intent on walking back on your words and getting annoyed over someone not allowing you to do that, then I have no interest in continuing this.

"It was evident in the page, that the bones were not actually the remains as well." I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. It is now, but previously, when that image was up, the article made no attempt to debunk the player speculation. The addition, without context, of the picture of the bones only made it seem as though the article was supporting the speculation - a mere implication and interpretation, but one nonetheless, and once more for emphasis: the article had previously made no attempt to show that those bones aren't G-Lupe bones.

Yes, I am the one who called it a cyborg - a cyborg isn't a construct, however, and it seems pretty obvious upon close inspection of the model (easiest to do while others are watching the cinematic or, better yet, after it died and before it disappears). It has metal embedded into its body, that's the pure raw definition of a cyborg.

"1) that there is nothing to prove that GL is any sort of canine" If you know something else that has that kind of head, please fill me in.

"2) that the GW.dat confirms that the bones are GL" Except that, once more, it didn't. The gw.dat entry merely tells us "Graveyard of huge beast, their fossils unearthed by the unheaval of the Abaddon's return." with the name The Lupicus Boneyard. No indication of location, what the fossils look like other than being "huge beasts," and not even an indication that it made it in-game.

"see GW2W "Notes" re: "juvenile" and "retcon" hypothesis" Pure IP-added speculation.

"Stop putting words in my mouth and then arguing with me about what you think I said." The only words I put in your mouth are your own words. If you have a problem with me, fine. But don't go trying to avoid the obvious and attempt to victimize yourself. It isn't my wiki, never claimed it to be. I didn't delete it, I tagged it for deletion, rather important difference. It's not my beliefs, it's an unproven fact that you were promoting and unnecessarily so - if you so wanted such an image, you could have easily put it in the notes with a thumb description of "the skull of a skeleton mentioned in the note" or the like.

You really should stop over-reacting, by the way. Do you honestly think I'd care if you leave? Do you think I want you to leave? I don't know you. You're not important to me in any way, but in the same manner that doesn't give you rights to go and expect people to not remove your contributions on a wiki. If it wasn't me but, for example, Falconeye who did what I did, would you even care? I doubt it.

I shouldn't have to stop to discuss every little detail before acting. GWW:BOLD exists for a reason, and when the image is both unnecessary and gives a false implication to the reader (or at least some readers), then why shouldn't I be bold and improve the article in a way I believe it to be improved? The wiki loses NOTHING out of an image that isn't of a Giganticus Lupicus - irregardless of whether or not it was intended to be such beforehand - from an article about the Giganticus Lupicus. This isn't a hate crime against you nor do I think this is my wiki or any of that other bull you spouted, so please, don't be so over dramatic. Konig 06:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

eatingpopcorn.gif -Auron 08:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hard to believe people still take this place so seriously. Ryuu  *meow* 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Ryuu.

I don't know if it is denial, delusion, or outright lies... http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Giganticus_Lupicus&diff=2548341&oldid=2523844 shows my edit, and the mention of the bones (that Gordon Ecker and Konig himself, added in July 2009). I don't check to see who added or deleted things (at least not until now...I'm simply not that concerned), yet somehow, my OP seems to have been targeted at Konig...although I don't seem to see anything that doesn't equally target Falconeye (sorry Falconeye, but I'm trying to reference an uninteresting rant which included you in it). Perhaps if I'd spent more time on the wiki, I'd have known how to check histories, and such, so that I'd have known to avoid pages that are Konig's personal property.

As to the rest of the Konig tirade above, I'm simply going to ignore it. All I see is proof of a self-important, disrespectful and argumentative attitude...precisely why Konig isn't being "BOLD" on GW2W for at least another three months...and if I'm not mistaken, this is the second time for exactly the same reason...some people just can't learn. I however, won't be wasting any more of my time, and now that I've been looking at userpages, page histories (reverts, re-reverts, who has been making them, and to what user's posts), I see no point in bothering to post anything, and allowing myself to become the next target of Konig's hatred. Gwynna Vive (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I applaud you for trying to turn me into a villain, but I had no tirade, I'm not the one who's made a scene, I'm not the one who went into an outburst of all caps, nor am I the one blaming the other for making an attitude - I merely responded to these things, and I guess I should have learned my lesson by now by not responding to these accusations. But please, continue your delusion, cuz this isn't my wiki, and this isn't my personal property - I have none on the internet, tyvm. And I don't hate you nor anyone else.

For the record, I didn't say you said those bones were GL bones. In fact, I said that the lack of context with the image was the biggest problem, as well as the fact we know that they're not. The note, which when it was added was more accurate, has become a false implication - one now fixed, and wouldn't have been so without your contribution as your contribution brought attention to it. What I said was that your image would have been less of an issue if it had context and was placed within the notes section rather than at the top of the article which, based on how all other articles are formatted, implies that the picture is of a G-Lupe's remains.

But again, please continue to call me out on things I haven't done and that anyone with half a brain and the patience to read through the walls of text which are your long comments and my responses to them. And I do suggest you learn to calm down before responding. Konig 23:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone seems to think I want to waste my time discussing anything with them now or in the future? I apologize to the GWW community for my EXTREMELY wordy posts that developed here as I attempted to learn why material was deleted. I assure you that it will not be hapenning again (see my userpage). Gwynna Vive (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)