Talk:Guild Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the the assessment scale.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Archive
Archives
  1. October 18, 2004 to June 6, 2006
  2. June 2006 to November 2006
  3. November 2006 to January 19, 2006

Contents

[edit] Builds

Should example builds be on this page, personally i don't think so since what is kosher changes frequently in guild wars, but i thought i would like to get a second opinion before i make any deletion's/reverts.--JWJW Talk Long Live Esperanza! :) 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, no. As you said, builds fluctuate quickly in Guild Wars do to skill balances. If someone wants a build, they should check out GW Wiki. Epsoul 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
IIRC there actually used to be a GW builds page on Wikipedia but it got deleted. So yeah I can imagine the same end-result occurring if you tried. --Rambutaan 23:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only would it possible be deleted, but a build page does not really need to be added because it does not really belong on a wikipedia page. Guildwiki is better for that. No offense meant.

[edit] official wiki

I've noticed that all of the gw.gamewikis.org have been removed from here in favour of the currently information-slim official wiki. Could we have the two links existing together until the official one get more information. At the moment the official wiki seems to have less info than the Gwonline one. :/ --Aspectacle 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the community from the old guildwiki.org site has now moved to the official wiki site. I don't object in principle to linking both similarly named wikis, but if the older wiki site will soon be moribund then we should not link to it. — K. Chaudhuri 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the core contributors and bureaucrats from GuildWiki have started work on the official Wiki, however by no means is GuildWiki being abandoned by them. If the official Wiki will ever catch up to GuildWiki, it will be months and months from now. Having both links is fine imo, but if a choice had to be made, there would be absolutely no reason to pick the official Wiki over GuildWiki at this moment.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.68.94.17 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-12T22:07:17 (UTC)
My interest in the entire family of MMOG-related articles was sparked by a group of AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameWikis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki among them, where it was decided that these game-specific wikis do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion threshold for web-sites, WP:WEB. The latter AfD was closed with an allowance of an external link to the guildwiki.org site. At that time it was the only Guild Wars related wiki, and clearly a good source of unencyclopedic detail on the game, so it was worth linking to it per the external linking policy. The situation now is different. There are at least four different Guild Wars related wikis— the original guildwiki.org one, the one run by the site called "guild wars online", the Guild Wars wikia, and now this new wiki run by ArenaNet themselves. It would be silly to link to all of them for they have identical goals and duplicate the majority of their content. I think a link to just one, or two until the official wiki matures, is the right number. — K. Chaudhuri 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link -- it isn't advertised to the general public yet and is still being set up (policies, guidelines) and worked on by the old GuildWiki crowd et cetera before ANet advertises it. It has no content and I think it ludicrous to put a fully-fledged wiki to side for an empty "official one". I will put the link back when the official one is ready, but the GuildWiki one should stay until they are comparable by any measure ~Skuld 16:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I'm not sure that I like the idea of a trivia section for this article, certainly not in the detail which is being set out by the section which was added yesterday. Yes, it is possible that Starcraft lore might feature, but there are *so many* pop and SF culture references that it would seem silly to attempt to reference them all. As just a few examples off the top of my head; Eye of Argon, Captain Planet, Babylon 5, Firefly (TV series), Thriller (music video), Napoleon Dynamite, Snakes on a Plane and dozens more. Perhaps this section should be removed or reduced (now before it starts to get out of hand) to a statement about in-game humour and the fact that they make pop culture references throughout the game and that they draw on their knowledge from other games, like starcraft. --Aspectacle 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the section should be included unless it is sourced...as you mentioned, GW does delve into a lot of pop culture. Epsoul 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Just reference that pop-culture references exist, but no need or value in attempting to list them all here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As the creator of this topic, I must say that I never really saw any references to outside culture other than Starcraft, so I beg your pardon. I had just been delving a little into Starcraft, and realized some of these similarities. --nERVEcenter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.100.205 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Tyria

Is the name of the entire WORLD "Tyria" or just the continent from Guild Wars Prophecies? I was under the impression it was the latter but the article claims the entire world (including Cantha and Elona) is known as Tyria. Just wanted to confirm (and if it's false, it should be removed) --Rambutaan 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, Tyria is a large continent, such as Cantha or Elonia.<>Epsoul 02:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
when Kaustuv posted that I had to check too. Assuming Guild Wiki is an accurate resource this page is correct. http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Tyria --Aspectacle 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds somewhat logical. I believe I remember some dialogue that said Tyria was "the world," but I dismissed it as just an error. Thanks for clearing that up.<>Epsoul 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's even more confusing when it comes to the PvP character creation screen and it has "Tyria", "Cantha" and "Elona" as different styles, considering "Tyria" is apparently the entire world lol. Plus the recent Design a Weapon contest states that you can draw influences from "Tyria, Cantha or Elona" http:// www.guildwars.com/events/contests/designaweapon07/ and also when you get the "Protector of..." titles in the game, you get "Protector of Tyria" for completing the Prophecies campaign, "Protector of Cantha" for Factions and "Protector of Elona" for Nightfall. Very confusing! Maybe ANet don't even know themselves! :( --Rambutaan 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The manual for the original campaign (Prophecies) used the name Tyria both in reference to the world and to the continent, pretty much interchangeably. My guess is that at the time, they hadn't thought out how future campaigns would link into the game-play and the confusion it would cause by having a continent named the same as the world.
There was a question once posted to Gaile Gray (Community Relations Manager for ArenaNet) on this in Feb 2006 (shortly before the release of the second campaign). The answer is about halfway down this log of her replies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm that *is* confusing! Oh well if that's the way it's gonna be then that's the way it's gonna be :P - guess it stays as is --Rambutaan 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a GW veteran and YES Tyria is the WORLD and A Continent on it

[edit] Articles for deletion

The following Guild Wars-related AfDs are in progress.

FYI. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of statement

In this revision, Eric Sandholm (talk • contribs) claims that the "campaign four" has been replaced by "guild wars 2". What/who is this claim attributable to? This fact doesn't seem to appear in the Inquirer article. Perhaps ArenaNet have announced it on some of their own or fan-maintained web-sites? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No new information has been released as yet - I believe that post to be another variation of the evolving rumors based on the initial Inquirer story.
There is anticipated to be new information coming out later this week. ArenaNet has stated that articles about the next Guild Wars campaign will be in the April issue of PC Gamer magazine (they are the media partner of ArenaNet in the USA). The April issue is anticipated to begin arriving in mail boxes of subscribers on or around March 15th, and available at news stands by April 3rd. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaustuv Chaudhuri: good point- I'll remove that claim. Eric Sandholm 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Invalid information still exists, {{disputed}} tag placed in corresponding area of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.112.204.80 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-15T23:31:08 (UTC)

There is no need for such garish boxes. The sections already mention the dispute and are worded to reflect the source of the claims. Whether these sections should exist at all is a different question, but several people have claimed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars 2 that there will be fresh information from more reliable sources soon. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why CORPG?

I'm moving the following claim by 71.63.89.37 (talk • contribs) here:

The reason ArenaNet calls Guild Wars a CORPG is because the missions within the game are either cooperative or competitive.

I find this unlikely, to put it lightly. It is true that the game has cooperative and competitive missions, but it is a stretch to claim it as the reason for the name CORPG. In this edit, this user claims that this is "correct information that has been proven by NCSoft staff". Let's see this proof. Eric Sandholm 02:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While I didn't find anything directly on Guild Wars' actual website (it may be in one of the manuals), one of the earlier Fansite Friday links said "Guild Wars is a Cooperative/Competitive Online Role Playing Game (CORPG)." If anyone has enough time on their hands, it might be prudent to see if Gaile Gray classifies it as CORPG in a chat log.<>Epsoul 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing that ArenaNet doesn't call it a CORPG. It says CORPG right there on the Prophecies retail box! The objectionable statement is that ArenaNet calls it a CORPG "because the missions .... are either cooperative or competitive". Eric Sandholm 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then. I can't think of any instance where the CORPG name is specifically referenced to only because of the missions.<>Epsoul 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not just about the missions, but the FAQ from GuildWars.com says specifically why. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's :Cooperative" because you "cooperate" with players in quests, missions, people "cooperate" with each other and join guilds. Guilds join other guilds to make alliances. The "cooperation" is more than just the missions. 24.61.22.75 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Essentially, that is my viewpoint of the situation.<>Epsoul 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed for features?

"Guild Wars also has several features designed to promote casual play by reducing grind"

This sentence is marked as citation needed... How can one cite features? The primary feature in Guildwars that promotes casual play is the skill system, instead of building up a mass of stronger and stronger skills, players are giving a collection of balanced skills, but are only allowed to use 8 skills at a time. So players reach the maximum allowed of skills within hours of installing the game. They reach the maximum level, 20, shortly after. Should we add an explanation or remove the citation needed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.158.187 (talk • contribs).
Find an article in IGN, GameSpot or some other reliable gaming site where it states Guild Wars promotes casual play in a way others (like WOW) don't. -- ReyBrujo 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. You may as well write your own article and cite that. Besides, I've seen that phrase many times when referring to Guild Wars. Jeff Strain probably said it himself. 132.203.83.38 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're essentially proving the OP's point. While I don't think it should be sited, if JS mentioned it in an interview, that would probably qualify.<>Epsoul 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relocate the Guild Wars 2 section

I have moved copied of the text to Guild Wars 2. The section Guild Wars#Guild Wars 2 needs to be removed; it doesn't make between the campaigns and a subsection named "Account". Not deleting it yet because the Guild Wars 2 recently perishe in an AfD and it might get deleted again as reposted content. Eric Sandholm 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now removed this section entirely to Guild Wars 2. Eric Sandholm 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye of the North

Even though little is known, it is part of the storyline for the first Guild Wars. Not Guild Wars 2. --198.254.16.201 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's part of both, it connects the two. 72.144.86.230 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics

This article does not currently include the following essential topics, in no particular order:

  1. Titles
  2. Miniatures
  3. Weekend and special events
  4. Henchmen and heroes
  5. Hard mode (unsure about this one)

Eric Sandholm 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While some of the topics are valid, I don't think miniatures deserve more than a sentence, and I've got no clue to this "Hard Mode" you're refering to. Heroes/henchmen have short blurbs in the article, weekend/special events are listed in the development section, and titles aren't listed in the article (although they may be listed in the Prophecies article, because IIRC they became available shortly before Factions was released).<>Epsoul 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hard Mode isn't even avaialbe yet - I think Anet said sometime in the next 30 days. I don't see where it deserves more than a passing reference once its introduced - but at this point, I don't see where you can cite a source that's usable in Wikipedia for it at this stage. Wait until it's official. On the others, I don't see why they would deserve more than a sentence or two at the most. This is just a general summary/introduction to the game - not an all-encompassing game guide. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Talk%7EGuild_Wars_e4c0.html"