Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested Move: Guild Wars to Guild Wars Prophecies

I would suggest that Guild Wars is a series of games under said title (Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, and Guild Wars Nightfall, with more games in development). Should we really consider Guild Wars and Guild Wars Prophecies to be the same game? I suggest we move this article to Guild Wars Prophecies and then create a Guild Wars page that reflects all three games in the Guild Wars series, containing information that is relavent in all 3, and providing clear links to each of the games in the Guild Wars series. --Wormywyrm 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant about the idea. Firstly because Prophecies was released and is still sold in stores as simply "Guild Wars". Secondly because basically everything that prophecies is - story and a handful of skills aside - is common to all campaigns, you essentially get Prophecies if you buy any other campaign. Thirdly, a common page and what is common content is poorly defined in your description. For instance Factions and Nightfall the professions are not common to all campaigns, but seem to be constantly regarded as such.

I do however acknowledge that there is common content there - and I am tempted to refactor it into a common article - but the line needs to be drawn somewhere or we may as well follow Per's idea below and have a single massive GW page. I like the idea of seperate pages for each campaign, because they may be purchased as seperate games, they each have their own story plus they've been reviewed and developed seperately. If a common page is created I'd like the common content line to be drawn at "if you have to buy a specific campaign to get it it isn't common". --Aspectacle 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the move tag. In future, please follow all of the steps at WP:RM to set up a survey here. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Guild Wars: Prophecies" should redirect to this article (if it does not already) and that there should be a new article called "Guild Wars series". Anyone agree? Greeves 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge all 3 games in one

I would like to see one large Guild Wars article used as an overview on the game mechanics. Perhaps talking about all 10 professions here then talking about the other games' missions/quests/details/specialities etc. on their own articles.

Please sign your comments! :) There is merit in doing as you say - particularly for the professions because it is changed so frequently by random visitors. But why would you treat professions differently from the other campaign specific stuff such as the story, reviews, development and different game mechanics, that doesn't really make sense to me. I like the seperate pages because they are seperate games and would like to keep them that way - unless you can come up with a really compelling reason for it to be otherwise. --Aspectacle 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well I could imagine that the motion would fail anyway considering we used to have an equipment and separate character pages but the former got deleted and the latter got merged (although with WoW it's perfectly acceptable to have separate pages for minor NPCs e.g. Captain Placeholder, go figure :P). --Rambutaan 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the suggestion the same way you did Rambutaan, I thought they were suggesting bringing the professions across to this page, not making a whole new page. Your way is possibly the more accurate interpretation. I'd oppose a new page, particularly as the detail we already have listed is considered to game crufty by at least one person. On WoW... I think that WoW has more wikipedia fans than Guild Wars. Plus it has *much* more social impact which kinda justifies its larger presence. Know that if I was involved in the Wow pages in wikipedia I'd be campaigning for the deletion (or at least the merge) of Captain Placeholder. ;) --Aspectacle 02:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Funny how WoW has so much more space on wikipedia... i think its unfair. Guild Wars is just as good, if not better. But then again the GuildWiki is 1000 larger than the WoWWiki so its ok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ieldra (talk • contribs) .

The sad reality is that if you want your fictional universe covered in detail on Wikipedia, you have to be willing to flip out at everything and mob all discussions about it. Most of the Warcraft character pages are unencyclopedic garbage, but just try putting any one of them through AfD. (I did, once.) Warcraft isn't even the worst of the lot -- that honour is shared by the Pokemon and Ah My Goddess! fandoms. In my opinion, this problem will fester as long as WP:FICT remains utterly broken. I initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles, but I have since become aware that the result of that AfD was an injustice. So my current advice is to just BOLDly promote characters from the list of Guild Wars characters to full articles and include as much plot summary and trivia as you can find. Then, when anyone objects, cite the indelible precedent of Warcraft. Play the outraged victim card early and often, and assault the motives and intelligence of all who object. It works. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:( I'll leave your suggestion to Rambutaan, but I hope he doesn't act on it. ;) I am disappointed that there isn't some clear authority (and authority is what is required for these sorts of arguments) on enforcing the WP:FICT guidelines across various media. It is a flaw inherent in the system that while it is a "concensus" not a vote, the one with the most and loudest voices will win out against what is perhaps the reasonable solution, particularly when Captain Placeholder type content is concerned. I suppose that the deletionists are going to win in the end - in five years time when the fans have gone none will oppose the deletion of the pages which no-one sees the relevance of any more. --Aspectacle 22:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

World of Warcraft should have more space on Wikipedia, as it has a much larger cultural impact. It is more likely that a non-gamer sees some reference to World of Warcraft and wants to look it up in Wikipedia, than that he stumble over a Guild Wars reference. This has nothing to do with which game is better.

But I would also like to see an organization that covered the game mechanics in one place, and then each of the three storylines. It could be in one or four articles. Depends on the size. --Per Abrahamsen 13:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok - it's clear you disagree with User:ReyBrujo who did [1] that the section is too detailed. I can see where it came from; the amount of detail we have on the page is quite high, while it actually explains little in way of a generic nature, a summary on how Guild Wars is actually played, particularly if you compare it to game articles which have Feature Article status - I've been refering to Half Life 2 and have trying to model the Guild Wars Nightfall page a bit on that.

I'm a bit confused on the "one or four articles" statement, could you clarify whether you're suggesting a single game mechanics page, four game mechanics pages, a single guild wars page, or a game mechanics page and the three main articles? Then could you explain what content you'd move about and how you'd structure it? --Aspectacle 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Either one article "Guild Wars" with four sections: 1) Game Mechanics, 2) Prophesies storyline, 3) Factions storyline, 3) Nightfall storyline, OR four articles: 1) Guild Wars (covering only game mechanics, not the the storyline), 2) Guild Wars Prophesies (covering only the storyline), 3) Guild Wars Factions (likewise), 4) Guild Wars Nightfall. All the game mechanics would be in the mechanics section/article, with a note about which campaign it was introduced.--Per Abrahamsen 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I dont know about all those detail pages, but I would definitely like to see this article 'Guild Wars' talk about the guild wars series as a whole instead of the Prophecies campaign of the Guild Wars series. I know that Prophecies is important because it is the first Guild Wars campaign, but Guild Wars being directed to Guild Wars Prophecies overshadows the other Guild Wars campaigns far too much. --Wormywyrm 22:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to your move suggestion above. --Aspectacle 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Traps

I edited the traps skill description because its not entirely accurate. While the majority of traps are "offensive traps" which trigger when an enemy walks over them, traps such as Healing Spring automatically heals all allies in the area for x health. The edit I made was fairly... awkward ...and I would appreciate it if someone improved on it. Epsoul 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism!

Okay, someone put some stuff on the article that have no reason to be there. All of that stuff is nothing more than biased junk. I'm removing at once. SCGhosthunter1 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

PvP Edits...

Why does PvP Specifics mention ABs? From what I understand, Factions & Nightfall specific content aren't allowed in the Prophecies article. Also, when has HA been known as "World at War?" Epsoul 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't noticed until now. I've removed it. The "World at War" is an old phrase for describing what the favour mechanic is about - the different areas; Korea, America, Europe fighting each other for the favour of the guild wars gods. I can see that it isn't really used much, so that bit could be re-written to remove the reference. --Aspectacle 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The usual phrase is "Worlds at War" (so the article is wrong and I'm about to fixed it), a search with that and "Guild Wars" turns up a bunch of pages about it, or at least defining it in the HA context. Nothing particularly recent though. --Aspectacle 03:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I went and deleted the mention of ABs Cahill1 09:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical Response

I removed a discussion about the "no monthly fee" which read like some WoW vs. GW fanboy summary (sorry to whoever wrote it), and not really encyclopedic in nature. The discussion of "nerfing" also seem too influenced about fansite discussions, without the academic distance expected from an encyclopedia. Neither section seem relevant for people outside the game-culture. So I'll probably remove the nerfing section as well.--Per Abrahamsen 13:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that text initially and I have never played any of these games. Your justifications for removing these sections are extremely weak. The criticism is all sourced and therefore verifiable. Deleting relevant criticism in the guise of "academic distance", whatever that is, is a manifest violation of NPOV. I am undoing your deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: the paragraph you removed in this edit wasn't my creation, and I support its removal. The above comments refer to the other proposed edits, which you appear not to have made yet. The nerfing paragraph has grown to more than twice the size of my initial brief note (which was summarizing a sprawling discussion of "nerfing" in an earlier revision). If you want to pare it down to what can be established from reliable sources, I can only cheer you on. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any references in the section about nerfing. If you can find one that is not from a public fora, including it here would be worthwhile. I just don't see this as a place to summarize fansite discussions from fansites. If someone else has summarized the fanste discussions, we can of course build on that.--Per Abrahamsen 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many references, but they are probably not reliable. Again, that paragraph is a summary of earlier revisions, and a compromise short of outright deletion because many of these complaints are verifiable. Just hrowse the forum Aspectacle linked to above, guildwarsguru.com. Note: I am not taking a position pro or against removal, and I haven't done any due dilligence to find reliable cites. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With references, I meants <ref></ref> sections. Anyway, I believe an alternative could be to move it from "critisism" to "game mechanics". As I understand it, the GvG ladder is reset at some fixed intervals in order to declare a winner of the previous tournament, and start a new tournament. Between these "tournaments", the skills are rebalanced. Stick to the facts and leave out the likes and dislikes.--Per Abrahamsen 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, it is a fact that players complain about "nerfing". The problem is just sourcing it per Wikipedia's strict guidelines. As to the details, people who play the game will know better than me. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Per's point on skill balancing no longer holds true, because as of a few weeks ago they performed a skill balance mid-season due to particular imbalance with the Nightfall skills. Traditionally skills were balanced between GvG ladder seasons (seasons however are not of fixed duration, the duration is annouced at the beginning of a given ladder season). Further information about skill balancing could be integrated into the article. They used to publish "fansite fridays" where the developers would answer questions asked by that fansites members and it would be put on the fansites pages. If I found one which supported the "nerfing" claims would that be valid for wikipedia cite? --Aspectacle 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a "fansite friday" would qualify for "critical response". The term usually apply to published reviews, often written by professionals. It is not a alternative spelling of "criticism". It could be in another section, that the skills are occasionally rebalanced could interest some people who don't play the game. That the players constantly argue about skill balance and rebalancing online is less likely to be of interest.--Per Abrahamsen 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real reason why a Fansite Friday wouldn't qualify as a source.

Epsoul 22:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I kinda missed the point on Per wanting to remove the criticism because it wasn't from published critics. Plus I couldn't find anything to support it in the Fansite Friday stuff anyways. --Aspectacle 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Too much unnecessary info

This article about GW is seriously way too long. We don't need information about Death Magic or special holiday events, there's a whole other wiki for that. If someone could shorten this, please... Nekokatsu 07:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Its fine IMO. Its comparable in size to WoW, which also has its own wiki if you want a reference.Epsoul 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Party search and reconnects

Maybe It should be included that they recently got rid of most connectivity problems by allowing people to reconnect in instances. Also the party search has added a new way of advertising trade items. --Getalifebud 15:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Split

This has been discussed above already, but it is getting increasingly difficult to refer to the Guild Wars series if the link goes to the first released campaign. I have thus moved out the campaign-specific portions to Guild Wars Prophecies, and left the common elements in Guild Wars. The campaigns and the series are individually notable, I think, and there is no need for Wikipedia to mirror the same confusion that Arena Net have caused with their marketing of Prophecies. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Compliments to you on the spilt and the general improvement to the content of the pages.

What of the development section in Guild Wars Nightfall? I'm inclined to remove it and put more general statements in the general development section such as "A-Net uses open public beta testing", "A-Net has several development teams working on different campaigns concurrently", that sort of thing rather than listing things like beta test dates in the individual articles (such details I think are of questionable interest?). I think it could be interesting to expand on some of the more significant general game/interface modifications which have been made over the past few years.

I'd like to move the 'Narrative' section from Nightfall's Story section into this page too - possibly (in some for or other) into the co-operative gameplay section. I feel that it is general content which is of interest for describing how the story is structured in the game.

I think that the skill section is still not quite right (I got that far and stopped in my last major edit of the article). To my mind it doesn't reflect enough about the general mechanics of the skills (such as conditional damage, cast time, recharge time, cost) and has too much on acquisition and technical detail of attribute point allocation. Plus I've always been of a mind to remove the skill type listing. ;)

Either way it looks good to me. :) --Aspectacle 22:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain that most of the development section from Guild Wars Nightfall rightly belongs in this article now. If the essence of the narrative section is common to all campaigns, it should be moved here too. I am not sure how important the skill and attribute information in the article is: I mainly rewrote what was originally there. It does seem a bit detailed. It's hard sometimes to see the line that separates cruftiness from incoherence. While on the topic, that section should make clear whether certain campaign-specific skills and skill types are usable/extendable in other campaigns or not. For example: Factions introduced Item Spells, so are skills of this type usable in Prophecies and Nightfall areas, and were there any skills of this type created in Nightfall? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go at moving those sections...sometime. :)

wrt skill section; and I rewrote what was written before - in the end we're relying on the first creators of the page to determine what the best *type* of content for the page. I'll ponder it a bit more and see if I can come up with something more.

Skills are usable anywhere regardless of campaign or type. The new skill types seem to so far be tied to a particular profession. So, for instance, binding rituals are only used by ritualists, Forms only by dervish. New binding ritual type skills are available in Nightfall, but they are skills for ritualists only, so are only really accessable to those who have Factions as well as Nightfall. If that makes sense? --Aspectacle 03:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)