Talk:Guild Wars Nightfall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with the neutrality of Section 0. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is speculation. Not quite all of it but most of it, and the name has yet to be confirmed by Anet. The references to previous games section is completely speculative and is possibly just one persons theory. IMO this page doesn't really belong in wikipedia yet because there isn't enough real confirmed information to warrant it. Aspectacle 23:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows for articles to discuss future games, with the speculation involved, then preferrably with the {{future game}} template message on top. But I think the issue here is the actual article title, because this name is speculative mostly from some new DNS records. I'm not sure if the right word for it is NPOV though, as I can't see too much bias, and edits mostly by one person doesn't really automatically make anything NPOV; that depends more on the content than how many cooperated. I'm not sure if there's anything better to call this issue though and what to do in these circumstances. :-) -- Northgrove 08:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I decided to add the "future game" template, because regardless how appropriate titling an article from speculation is, it's about the confirmed Chapter 3 of Guild Wars nevertheless. That template also more clearly warns the reader that there may be speculative content in it. -- Northgrove 08:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your modification, Northgrove. However I think NPOV is probably still correct. If something isn't fully based in fact it's neutrality, and correctness, is always in dispute, no matter how reasonably it is argued and thought out. :) Hopefully we get an announcement soon so this page becomes a little more legit. Aspectacle 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the section "Speculation" is fairly neutral, except for the fact that the title "Nightfall" is not confirmed. However, anything in the "References in Previous Games" is downright made up. There is no indication whatsoever in previous games that Elon(i)a has anything to do with Campaign 3! The sole link between Elona and C3 is the fact that the Crystal Desert is a desert, which fits with a North African setting. But IMO that is clearly not enough evidence to warrant such a theory being part of a Wikipedia article (even if it is clearly labeled as speculation). This section should be removed from the article alltogether! --Tetris L 07:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the section? Evidence was provided in the clear form of actual quotes from the official PRIMA Guide and in-game. In fact, the source of the Luxury Goods quote was non other than GuildWiki, a site that I believe you frequently contribute to, therefore your statement is wrong. Besides, I never said that this proves Elona will be the setting for C3, I clearly stated "many players believe that Elona will be the setting for the next Guild Wars Campaign". Also, don't put two {{npov-section}} templates on the same page. 'Tis ugly. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tetris wasn't arguing that the references to Elona didn't exist, he was clearly arguing that any relationship between those named locations and C3 is invented conjecture. You could just as easilly argue that any of the prior cultures represented and mentioned in the Crystal Desert could be in C3. As for "many players", I could post conjecture from my guild and claim that the opinion of many. It's not a real measure for validating the insertion of a wiki entry.
For the record, according to the history, the user that applied the second section NPOV had a different IP address than Tetris L. --161.88.255.139 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What 161.88.255.139 said. The section "References in Previous Games" is a nice write-up about Elona, and I don't question the correctness of the ingame quotes. However, the section lacks any evidence whatsever that Elona is linked to GW campaign 3 in any way. So, I shouldn't have said "Anything [in the section] is downright made up.". It's only the connection between Elona and GW3 that's downright made up. But that's the key point of this whole section, isn't it? Which makes the whole section void, IMO. I'll hold back doing it myself, because I'm not a Wikipedia regular, but it is still my strong belief that the section should be removed if neutrality and objectivity means anything on Wikipedia.
Oh, and indeed it wasn't me who added the npov tag. :) -- Tetris L -- 195.33.166.40 09:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
More than 10 days later, nothing happened, nobody commented. I will now go ahead and prune the "References in Previous Games" section. Even more, I'll pretty much remove that section alltogether. -- Tetris L --195.33.166.40 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the NPOV tag on the article, weasel tag already raises the neutrality issue so there is no need to spam with Wiki templates :) If someone purges the article of weasel words and still doubts a NPOV violation, feel free to add it back. Take care --Xasf 11:11, 07 July 2006 (GMT+3)

The weasel tag had been removed, but the phrase "Some players believe that..." still remained, so re-inserting weasel tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The weasel tag and the "Future game" tag had been removed, but the phrase "Some players believe that..." still remained, and the game is still in pre release status. so re-inserting tags. Also re added the guild wars links and the external sources links.

Midnight08 (talk • contribs) - 03:53, 19 July 2006 (EST)

I have made some moderate changes to the article (in addition to adding a bit of content), mostly in order to remove the weasel words. First, I have removed the contested "Some players believe that..." in the Elonia speculation and replaced it with a note (and evidence via a link) that Elonia merely *could* be the name of the continent or a locale on it. Secondly, I have removed the information near the beginning that stated "It is believed that these enemies will appear," since those too are Weasel Words (By Whom is this believed?) and the role that the creatures mentioned in the IGN article will play is still completely unclear. If anyone feels strongly about having that information in the article, go ahead and re-insert it, but please do not make the same mistake of listing Dervishes (a playable class) as a probable enemy, and be careful to avoid WW. Anyhow, as such, I feel the article is now WW-free and have removed that template from this article. Blue Crest 08:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the weasal words template as I am certain that the article is now wholly neutral. ~xenc. 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed info

Jeff Strain did no such thing.. 195.137.4.228 07:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The phrase The following is confirmed, factual information confirmed by ArenaNet's Jeff Strain at E3 2006 is bogus. There were some guesses made by people who were allowed to preview the third campaign at E3 and Jeff neither confirmed nor denied them, just said the guesses were along the right lines or in the general area or something to that effect. It's reasonable to assume that the information is close, but it's misleading to claim that it's confirmed and factual. The entire article is nothing but speculative, using best guess information. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it's portrayed as what it trully contains. --24.19.168.170 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press Release - July 18, 2006

ArenaNet Announces Guild Wars Nightfall
Guild Wars Players Invited to Play in Exclusive Player-Versus-Player Event as Beta Testing Launches for Next Guild Wars Campaign

July 18, 2006 (BELLEVUE, WA) — ArenaNet®, developer of the world's leading subscription-free online roleplaying games Guild Wars® and Guild Wars FactionsTM, and NCsoft® Corporation, the world's leading developer and publisher of online computer games, announce today the title of the next game in the award-winning franchise, Guild Wars NightfallTM. Further, Guild Wars Nightfall has entered the beta testing stage and Guild Wars players worldwide are invited to participate in an exclusive, first-look player-versus-player (PVP) event, July 28 — 30, 2006.

During the PVP Preview Event, both Guild Wars and Guild Wars Factions® players will get a first look at Guild Wars Nightfall, and will be able to try out the two new professions being introduced in the game; the Dervish, a scythe-wielding holy warrior, and the Paragon, guardian angel of the Elonian people. In addition to testing out the new professions and arenas, players will also be able to compete for items that will be exchangeable for a variety of rewards throughout the weekend event.

The Guild Wars Nightfall PVP Preview event will kick off on Friday, July 28 at 12:01am PDT and will continue through Sunday, July 30 at 11:59pm PST.

Guild Wars, an instant bestseller worldwide upon its release in April 2005, and Guild Wars Factions, the number one game in both North America and Europe earlier this year, are global online roleplaying games. Guild Wars Nightfall will continue the tradition of inviting players to immerse themselves in an epic storyline centered in a vibrant fantasy setting, build personalized characters, compete in head-to-head battles with players from around the world, and find adventure in missions and quests, in a Guild Wars game unlike any players have seen before. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1up.com

Can someone change that link to 1up in the beginning to the actual site where the picture is and not just the hom page? Please and Thank you.--NecroMancer 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamespot Article

Unless one of us here happens to own rights to the gamespot article you need to reword the articke into your own words before posting updated class info. the info below is from wikipedias copyright info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

Contributors' rights and obligations If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either

you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL. In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever.

In the second case, if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship and provide a link back to the network location of the original copy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midnight08 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Elona

"and the Paragon, guardian angel of the Elonian people. In addition to testing out the new professions and arenas, players will also be able to compete for items that will be exchangeable for a variety of rewards throughout the weekend event."

That is as much a confirmation than ever, so why is it still "specualted" for Nightfall to take place on the continent of Elona? Asososocrates

While the evidence is very compelling for the setting to be Elona, ArenaNet have not specifically announced that the new setting will be Elona. Until they say "the new campaign is set in Elona" noone can say for sure that it will definitely be Elona so the article should stay the way it is. --Aspectacle 23:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It's now implied instead of speculated; still not confirmed though. We also don't know if Elona (or Elonia) is the name of a country, continent, nomadic tribe, or a city. We know that Elonians appear to be involved, but it's not clear what place names exist as yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Go to the PvP section, you can now pick from three regions. Tyria, Cantha, Elona. --Asososocrates 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you are most welcome to update the article to reflect this new information. ;) --Aspectacle 02:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Slots

Is it worth mentioning that accounts merged with either of the two previous games earn two additional character slots free of charge? Note that neither of the other two Guild Wars articles currently mention character creation slots. ~xenc. 15:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If two character slots proves to be the norm with merged accounts I'll update the Guild Wars article to reflect that. I'm not 100% sure that there has been an announcement about character slots for nightfall yet? The factions article says A player with both Factions and Guild Wars Prophecies can link the games which allows their characters to travel between the two game's continents and the player may maintain two more concurrent characters. I chose not to call them character slots, but is that sufficient? --Aspectacle 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
ArenaNet's Gaile Gray confirmed earlier this week that each merged campaign earns the account two additional character slots. And the Faction article reads fine, I never noticed that paragraph! =O ~xenc. 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been noted by Gaile and Alex that the Bonus slot from the preorder is in addition to the 2 from linking making for 3 character slots if you preorder Midnight08 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Available Professions

If anyone can find out if the characters specific to Factions (Assassin and Ritualist) are available in Nightfall, it would be helpfull. I have not succeeded in finding out myself, but i will post it if I do.

The preview event allowed the combinations so i would assume at least that late game using a profession changer they would be allowed. Sort of like with Tyrian characters becoming Assassin or Ritualist secondary.
There hasn't been an official announcement on the fate of the Factions professions for Nightfall. I think that you will be able to take Factions profession characters through to Elona, however, it isn't clear whether more skills will be made available for these classes in future chapters. --Aspectacle 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storyline/Trivia Speculation with the 1/8/06 press release

I have made a few leaps of faith here while re-adding the now-confirmed information on the storyline and trivia sections (hate to say I told you so btw), saying that Dhuum is the "bad guy" in Nightfall and the like. However, I believe that there has been enough in-game evidence found by the GW Online Lore forum to give the information at least a second thought. All the information is too in-depth and complicated to go into here, but I beseech you: Instead of removing just about everything involving Dhuum, throw in conflicting theories about the "outcast god" being someone else, perhaps Menzies or some other god. However, the evidence supporting Dhuum is too great to be ignored, so I ask you not to remove it. At least, not until we get further confirmation of the storyline. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Guild Wars Nightfall takes place on the continent of Elona, Land of the Golden Sun. It is a nation comprised of three great provinces; The island province of Istan is the home of a vibrant people who live among the monuments of an ancient empire. The military province of Kourna, under the command of its great leader, Warmarshal Varesh, hugs the shores of the mighty river Elon. And in the rugged lands to the north, the Princes of Vabbi rule from their opulent citadels. Elona is a land of wealth and power, protected by its champions, the Order of the Sunspears. In Guild Wars Nightfall, Elona has fallen under the shadow of an evil, outcast god. Against the encroaching desolation of an infernal realm, the people of Elona will need more than a hero to save them, they will need a hero to lead them. . .for nightfall is at hand.

Lugiatm, my problem is that I've seen people quote this page as if it were gospel. By saying that it is Dhumm (which may very well be right, but that isn't the point) people will read this page as if it's saying something which ArenaNet has announced. The first trivia point really makes no sense and seems to have no relivance to Nightfall at all, so I am going to remove it. The trivia on elona may be alright but that sort of detail isn't on the other pages. However I'll leave it there in the meantime because it doesn't hurt. I'll do this later when I have a bit more time. :) --Aspectacle 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Dhuum is the most likely god to be involved. But, the mention of him here, with nothing mentioned in press releases or interviews, is just begging for the re-insertion of weasel or NPOV tags again. Actually, the same goes for the "I told you so"s - I don't recall that information being disputed, only that inclusion of rumor and speculation on a site that is focussed on facts was not appropriate. --161.88.255.139 16:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New, indisputible evidence of Dhuum being outcast god

Image:Gwn-tentacles.jpg
Seem familiar? Perhaps not, but look onto the next pic...
Image:Gwp-tentacles.JPG
See any similarities?

New screenshots by GameStar.de... tentacles seem to be a recurring theme in Nightfall, especially oily black, metallic ones. So, both are Nightfall screenshots, right? Wrong. The second image is a picture of the Tombs of the Primeval Kings, where Dhuum's army took over a while ago. Unless there are two gods who are both extremely fond of these tentacles, then Dhuum is definitely the one. The screenies released today, here and here were released for the purpose of putting 2 and 2 together. It would appear that, once again, I am right. So, who's going to update the article to relfect this? --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to laugh that tenticles are indisputable evidence for Dhuum. :D Unfortunately, as i said above, I'm waiting for the official announcement or most likely the release of the game to reveal who the outcast god really is. --Aspectacle 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a better explanation for the tentacles? If so, I'd like to hear it, or at least know why these similarities can't be seen as evidence. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 07:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't take my comment as a personal attack. I just found it somewhat amusing on a dull morning.  :) Sure, the tentacles could very well be further evidence that Dhuum is the outcast god. I don't disagree that out of the possibilities which we already know of Dhuum is the most compelling one to be that god and the evidence stacks up in his favour. I just don't think that an outright statement on this page supporting this theory is appropriate. --Aspectacle 08:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments made in the preview event reference Abaddon. Of course, you could argue that it's just another name under which Dhuum acts - sort of a way to hide his actions - or it could trully be a previously undocumented god. Either way, the "indisputable evidence" is clearly in question. --161.88.255.139 00:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More evidence of Dhuum :o

Here. It's all very interesting, but the most interesting one is the Realm of Torment Mesmer. "Realm of Torment" may indicate the Underworld, which was Dhuum's former domain before Grenth usurped him (outcast god, remember?), but the most interesting bit is the way it looks - it resembles a Grasp of Insanity, one of Dhuum's minions, closely. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proffession of the featured box?

What is the profession of the female on the box that is on the page right now? (might wanna put that under it, if we know for sure) Disinclination 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a dervish. I don't particularly want to put a note in the official info box 'cause it'll probably mess it up. There are screenshots all over the place at the moment, but I'm not sure about what rights I have to use them here. So I'll wait until the preview weekend (not this weekend, the next) and take some screenshots for this page to illustrate the appearance of the new professions. --Aspectacle 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks. :) (I can't wait for the Preview weekend lol) Disinclination 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System requirements source?

Well, can someone tell me which source is used for the system requirements? I've found no evidence that thase are the system requirements...

I've discovered the system requirements stated here are not correct, gamespot clearly says that the system requirements are the same as the other two Guild Wars games, so I've changed the system requirements. I do must say I do not know about the exact amount of HDD space needed, so change it if you know the true amount of HDD space needed... [Un-signed]

Well the box that I picked up yesterday if I'm not mistaken states 512mb ram minium. Not just 256mb Onenottoforget 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a conflict in the requirements which were initially reported by arenanet on their website and what is actually printed on the boxes. I'm watching threads about this topic in the fan forums to see whether there is official word on which is more accurate. I'd say that what is on the box is likely *more* correct - but I'd like to leave it as is for the meantime. --Aspectacle 22:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The system requirements seem to be correct now, Anet updated it's FAQ at Guild Wars.com .

[edit] Speculation

Speculation doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.--Per Abrahamsen 05:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The speculation section originated from the time when there was no confirmed information about the new game at all. Now that there are a lot of details confirmed about the game it isn't as interesting as it once was. I think that the only one which has any sourcable foundation is the one suggested in PCGamer, and a lot of things appear in the section and I have no way of really telling who's thinking it and how widely believed it is. I'm ok with leaving the section there until the game is released in a few weeks where it'll get replaced with other real information but if you which to preempt that and remove it - I'm not going to make a fuss. --Aspectacle 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PvP Edition

Someone said there was a Nightfall PvP Edition. as of right now, there isn't.Thusly I deleted the reference.

Big nitpick for something which is going to be available tomorrow along with the other editions. Technically the other editions aren't available either because they're not available for purchase until tomorrow - you didn't delete those too?  ;) I believe the entry is still valid but to avoid conflict I'll simply re-add it tomorrow. --Aspectacle 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey I purchased/received my pre-ordered copy of the CE yesterday :P, although technically the game doesn't get officially released until tomorrow (when they actually UNLOCK the game for play :)). --Rambutaan 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are really not thinking, are you? Just beacuse the normal game is and was relased dosn't mean there will automticly be a PvP edition. Go to the onlnie store and check yourself, there is no buyable PvP edition at theis time. There may be in the future, but as of today there is not.--68.192.188.142 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an announcement by Gaile Gray, Customer Rep from ArenaNet, about the PvP edition for Nightfall being available right on the opening of the game servers for Nightfall. Here is a thread where someone says they've purchased it. Please check your facts before you update the page. --Aspectacle 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's funny - because I purchased it too and it definitely offers PvP for Nightfall. Rarelibra 07:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, you did all see when I dated my last post5 correct? As of that point, there was no PvP edition. Now, today (and yesterday) there is one. Furthermore, when info on the "pvP Edition" was posted, there was no Nightfall PvP edition anounced, and thus it (speculation) did not belong on Wikipedia and I deleted it.--68.192.188.142 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

As mentioned, little reviews have been released (so I guess we'll wait till they come out) - however according to GameRankings.com there's been one review submitted by an online New Zealand review site. They've given the game 96% and claims it to be the best Guild Wars campaign ever, A.Net having learned their lessons from the previous chapters. --Rambutaan 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a new Eurogamer review too out today; here. It gives 7/10, but also says "It's easily the best expansion(sic) so far and if there's more like this to come from ArenaNet then we can expect Guild Wars to get even more popular.". The review has much less fanboi bias than the NZgamer review particularly as it is written by someone who never particularly liked GW to begin with, hence the lower score compared to the Eurogamer Factions review which gave 8/10. A few more reviews, particularly from some of the more notable game mags, would be good before this section can really take shape. --Aspectacle 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised but it seems that Nightfall is getting a worse review overall than the first two installments according to gamerankings. I think it's hovering at around 83% at the moment (interesting to note that Gamespy had awarded Prophecies 5/5, Factions 4.5/5 and 4/5 for Nightfall). Still not a bad score though I guess. Criticisms seem to directed at the perceived extra grind in getting promotion points to advance the story when you're already level 20 and the micromanagement involved in using Heroes, even though in general they're a good idea (source:Gamespy review). --Rambutaan 00:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth, 1UP/Games for Windows gives it a 9/10, and says its the best expansion to date. It seems that Nightfall is like Factions in the aspect, that both divided the media fairly well enough into either loving it or disliking it.
Epsoul 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup - I think that Nightfall is the best of the lot and that isn't really coming through in the ratings. But the points that some of the slighly more negative reviews make are good ones, and if you are giving a balanced view on the game are probably the best reviews so far; Gamespot and GameDaily. I've had a go at the section, I think that it covers off the main points. If you can think of anything else from reviews which should be there mention it here or add it in. I kinda wanted to add in detail around a comment from GameSpot;
"Taking cues from collectible card games like Magic: The Gathering, Guild Wars' skill system has grown rather esoteric over time, with many professions' skills being useful only in highly specific situations or combinations. Nightfall's new character classes are similarly complicated, offering up a vast number of unique skills that are loaded with qualifiers and contingencies, suggesting that Guild Wars has long since moved on from being straightforward."
which I think hits a spot on the growing complexity of the game, but the sentiment isn't really repeated in other reviews. --Aspectacle 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Good work with the Critical Response section - it pretty much summarises all the reviews I've been reading of the game so far :) --Rambutaan 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Rambutaan. :D It was awful to write, kind of like the lit review section of a dissertation. Bleh. --Aspectacle 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PvE Gameplay

  • "New PvE only skills have been introduced available by gaining ranks in titles." I was just wondering, what does this sentence allude to? I'm assuming it means that you can unlock skills for your Heroes in PvE by gaining promotions in Sunspear rank, but the way it's written at the moment, I read it as there are skills exclusive to PvE and not available in PvP (regardless of how they get unlocked). I just wanted to clarify if that's true or not? --Rambutaan 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant the sunspear res sig and lightbringer skills, which I understand you cannot use in PvP (although I've never personally tested them) which you get as you get ranks in the Sunspear and Lightbringer titles. They also get better with ranks in those titles. I hadn't really considered including information about the hero skill points which you get with rank in titles and can use for unlocks.  :) --Aspectacle 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
* Ah I see, well in that case (since I've only just started to get to the point in the game where this Lightbringer concept is introduced) I just wasn't aware of these PvE specific skills :) (I do have the Sunspear Rebirth signet though - totally forgot about that!). --Rambutaan 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a larger trend of reviews of this type?

See [1]. This review is non-technical but praises the game for its thematic elements. Are there other reviews of the sort, applauding or condemning the way Nightfall portrays African cultures? If so, it might be nice to put these viewpoints together in the article somewhere. It certainly struck me as something at least vaguely noteworthy about reactions to the game. 130.58.235.187 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read nothing negative about the African theme. There have been a few comments about the art style being new and interesting compared to what is typical of games of this type. What you've linked is more of an interview mixed with an overview of the use of non-white main characters in video games. It's a great article (Thanks for the link!), I just don't know how to work it, and its themes, in. Perhaps some information about the art direction and choices in the development section would be the best place for it? --Aspectacle 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)???

[edit] Anti-vandalism Lock

Could I suggest we either get an anti-vandalism lock or ban IP: 74.69.203.236 and 69.37.24.78 ? I'm getting sick of undoing edits on this article thanks to vandalism! I'm reverting back to the 10th May because even though some of the reverts were good intentioned, we've actually lost a few paragraphs of information thanks to the vandal(s). If anyone has added anything constructive in the past week, please re-add your info - but as far as I can tell, nothing else was added! --Rambutaan 00:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)