Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Working towards GA status

Thanks to Greeves, we now have a Guild Wars Task Force page hosted by the MMO WikiProject here. One of the aims of the task force is to generally improve all Guild Wars related articles starting with the main one (this one). For those interested in helping to improve its quality here is a link to GA criteria.

Summarised:

• 1. Well written according to the manual of style
• 2. Factually accurate and verifiable (in a word, REFERENCES!)
• 3. Broad in coverage (i.e. make sure we don't get too detailed. Apparently it needs to follow the summary style.
• 4. NPOV (Neutral Point of View)
• 5. It is stable (vandalism, which is unfortunately rife on this page is disregarded as a condition for an unstable article).
• 6. All non-free images must meet fair use criteria and labeled accordingly.

So far it looks like we need more references. The latter quarter of the article is good but the beginning is lacking.

IMHO, NPOV doesn't seem to be a problem and the article is also fairly stable after the splitting of Guild Wars from Guild Wars Prophecies - so points 4 and 5 are probably OK.

Writing style and coverage may need to be reviewed, when I get time I'll check out the guides.

In terms of images - perhaps a couple more images wouldn't go astray and thanks to Eric Sandholm, most images have their fair use tags on them. Although somehow there's a warning on the cover art one and the professions image needs a Fair Use declaration.

--Rambutaan 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The character selection screenshot is, unfortunately, causing me an unending amount of in-game spam. I shall replace it later with a throwaway PvP character. I have temporarily asked for its deletion per CSD. Eric Sandholm 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly needs to be done? I'd be happy to spend a bit more time on the article now I'm back in front of a computer. But my POV suffers a bit from being a little too close to the game and the article for too long; I can't see what is missing, what could do with reorganisation or what is overly described. I can chase down references to whatever (as long as I can read them online! :) but I don't know what should have references. I need a bit of help to make sure I'm not just pushing words around and progressing nothing. --Aspectacle 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Campaigns, Gameplay, and Player Characters I assume all need referencing to avoid the dreaded Original Research. Probably this can be found in game reviews back from 2005 for the core stuff and then for each successive release. Whether or not these are still available online, I don't know. Lynnae 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The game itself can be a reference, as long as it is used to cite facts about itself neutrally. That people can jump between EU, US and International districts, for example, will probably not be in any review but is an uncontroversial fact that can be verified in 5 seconds. Wikipedia shouldn't use primary sources for criticism and normative text, mainly. Eric Sandholm 01:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was editing the Campaigns section for clarity and a tiny bit accuracy in wording and noticed a British spelling in 'customise.' Should we be using British or American spellings as a standard? Lynnae 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just Americanize it. Most of the article, like the game itself, uses American spelling. Normally on Wikipedia the original spelling in the article is retained, but this article has had far too many editors to have a coherent original spelling. Eric Sandholm 19:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Under the campaign section, Eye of the North is described as an expanision that will be he next released. Now that it has been released, could this be reworded? I did not want to do this because it will remove the references. Perhaps it can be combined with the second sentence and new references added. 131.204.42.99 15:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Have new Images I would like to submit

I have several Images of GW in beta and of the E-3 2004 event that I would like to add to the article. I have obtained written permission from A.net to do so, I just need a general consensus among the articles Authors before I proceed.

Martinj63 03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Martinj63

• Well perhaps you should post them here in the discussion page so we can see what pictures you intend to add (or at least a link to the pictures). :) --Rambutaan 04:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you can just be bold and update the article directly. Usually works better; there really aren't any "authors" of the article per se. Eric Sandholm 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that others may revert it out ... in general, it's best to use images that illustrate some facet of the article. Many times, contents of a gallery are better handled by posting offsite links to their original source rather than mirroring them here. --161.88.255.139 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Guild Wars

I noticed there is no mention of criticism of Guild Wars. One of the big features of the game is no monthly fees, however there are arguments that due to limited income and developers always focusing on future products, maintenance and attention given to the current released products is minimal. One only needs to browse through the forums of the popular fansights of the game to see this criticism from the game's own player base. I believe the article lacks balance without mention of this criticism. 58.110.136.59 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable from multiple independent reliable sources. Forums, wikis, etc. are not considered reliable. Each game article, such as Guild Wars Prophecies has a "Critical Reception" section where a summary of the published criticism is given. Eric Sandholm 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So unless some gamer magazine/publication/website, which is unlikely to have the depth of understanding of a game that it's own users would have, criticizes something the wiki will ignore it? And although there are critcisms in the individual campaigns, some of the above problems mentioned are a general problem in the game as a whole, not specific to any campaign. Problems in the Random Arena, for example, which is accessable to all campaigns, have no place? 58.110.136.59 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While making no comment myself on the problems with GW's PvP in general, on which I could write a book, nor on whether such problems ought to be noted in Wikipedia, I'll just say that Wikipedia's current policies disallow any form of original thought that has not been published in the press. Any coverage of forum or wiki-based criticism we might consider writing in Wikipedia would be considered a "synthesis of primary material intended to advance a position". The Wikipedia of late 2007 is not the same as the Wikipedia of 2003; citing multiple independent reliable sources is a much bigger deal now. You can read Wikipedia:Criticism for a general overview of the content policies and guidelines regarding criticism on Wikipedia. Note in particular that the neutral point of view policy requires not giving "undue weight" to any point of view. It is very difficult to prove that any particular viewpoint on a forum or wiki is widely held enough that mentioning it will not give it undue weight. Eric Sandholm 12:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What about documenting admissions from game's staff on flaws or limitations in the game/business model? While they both occur on the official wiki and on the forums, which as you previously stated are not usually used in wikipedia, their status as employees is verifiable on their accounts in the respected mediums and they are authorities on the game, not some anonymous 15 year old posting angry flames. 58.110.136.169 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to know what these admissions are before we can decide whether they are worth adding to the article. To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any official admissions of flaws in the business model from ArenaNet; on the contrary, they sing praises of the subscription-less model in every interview. I believe the closest they have come is stating that the 1 new campaign/6 months rate was preventing them from concentrating on content for seasoned gamers. Now, on the official wiki there are a few channels of communication with the ArenaNet employees where they have agreed that the game currently has flaws; examples include Izzy's skills feedback pages, and the recent admission by the person who programmed Mallyx that he is currently impossible to beat. However, these admissions are a bit "inside baseball" for an encyclopedic article. I don't recall anyone from ArenaNet ever acknowledging that, off the top of my head, that ritualists (and, to an extent, paragons) are still overpowered, that leavers in the random arenas and leechers in AB and FA have nearly ruined these respective arenas, that trading in-game continues to be a sisyphean burden, and so on. To their credit, they do sometimes listen to the players; for example, they fixed Avatar of Grenth, toned down Soul Reaping, and, more recently, have finally done something baout stagnation and heroes in HA. (Granted, each was after hundreds of complaints in the forums.) In my opinion, the game is not so absurdly lopsided now as it was in January, though it is nothing like the near perfection that existed before Factions' release. Unfortunately, nothing like this can be written in the Wikipedia article unless it has already been remarked on by independent reliable sources. Eric Sandholm 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen admissions in forums and on the official wiki where staff had admited that a feature of the game was possible, a good addition to the game and would improve something, however their staff were too busy working on the upcoming release to implement it, or simply didnt have enough time. Examples of this are the ability to assign different levels of "authority" to guild officers, preventing some from kicking players etc, simple things like different coloured text in the trade chat to break up the sea of red, and more commonly skill balances, arena problems, player abuse and bug fixes etc. where when asked about them they say they are coming however the team is very busy working on the new product and so these services are slow. Their business model can't support ongoing maintenance and tweaking required for a game its size at a reliable pace, to make money they need to pump out new products, not maintain the old ones. Compared with a game like WoW where monthly fees employ a maintenance staff who can do this full time, without concerns for future releases. Of course they praise their business model, it was heavily criticised upon release, that's called Public Relations, I'm not saying they failed, just that there are bumps in the road and things aren't as peachie as they claim them to be. This is all ignoring the myriad of problems caused by the online store alone. 58.110.140.124 14:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What make you of this source? The page is over a year old, but it does mention criticism of Guild Wars as a whole (which, as far as I know, has only expanded and grown more ferocious since). Banedon (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links

The Mission Pack Press Release link is dead (number 8 ref currently) and I couldn't find the release on the web. However I did find http://www.guildwars.com/products/extras/missionpack/ with the info. I'm not used to proper ref updating so I didn't want to touch it myself. Lynnae 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite link #42 "^ Chris Massey (2003-11-10). ""Guild Wars"". The Wargamer. http://www.wargamer.com/articles/guild_wars_interview/Default.asp. Retrieved 2006-12-12." is broken or has moved. 24.117.43.78 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Evil assassin bodyguard"

First of all, this is Wikipedia, not GuildWiki. Assassin in the vernacular means someone who assassinates, not a profession. Assassins are not mentioned anywhere else in the article for readers to get the right context. Therefore, "assassin bodyguard" is a contradiction in terms. Secondly, Shiro was not inherently evil according to the story. He was corrupted by an agent of Abaddon. Lastly, and this is a battle that I am growing tired of fighting, but that level of detail is unnecessary and distracting in an overview article. What is the point of mentioning that Shiro is an assassin in a section that is about when campaigns were released and what major features they had? Eric Sandholm 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all (for me), it's not Guildwiki, it's Guild Wars Wiki, which is run by the ArenaNet staff which also contribute there which means the information there is all correct. Second of all, he assassinated the emperor of Cantha.--§ Eloc § 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "it" you are referring to. I am talking about Wikipedia not being GuildWiki. Readers here will not have the proper context to know that assassin is a technical term. As to whether he assassinated the emperor or not, that's a thin hair to split. We certainly cannot say if he planned to kill the emperor, or whether he acted in (what he believed to be) self defense. In either case, this bit of plot belongs in Guild Wars Factions, not here. Even calling him a "bodyguard" is an irrelevance. Eric Sandholm 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wtf? I'm not talking about Guildwiki, I was talking about GuildWarsWiki, which is a big difference.--§ Eloc § 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Eloc - whether one or the other game wiki, Eric's point is that the content of this wiki is directed to a different audience than those familiar with the game and mechanics found at Guild Wars Wiki 'or' GuildWiki.

I think that the 'corrupt bodyguard' text currently in the article is fairly clear and avoids using either 'assassin' or 'warrior'. Both terms having multiple meanings in the game and irl.

wrt the plot descriptions it could be that a 'See also' (or similar) at the top of the campaign section is sufficient and the campaign mechanic description would be left in the section. I don't have much trouble with the plot descriptions, because the different plot is a fairly big noticeable difference between campaigns. But taking them out to make a tighter main article is fine because the plot text seems to only pad out what is essentially a list of links to the different campaigns. --Aspectacle 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I frankly have no idea what point you are trying to make, User:Eloc Jcg. Eric Sandholm 00:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is, you tried changing it from Assassin to Warrior. He definitly isn't a Warrior, that's for sure.--§ Eloc § 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See the ending cinematic for the Tahnnakai Temple mission. Eric Sandholm 12:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol Eloc you get picked on here too. :P--Ninja Dragon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.207.233 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Assassins is not only a technical term, there's actually an Assassin profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.150.9 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Added The other Guildwiki to links

I added the other Guildwiki page to the links so people can reference it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.216.208 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They can already reach it via the linking to ArenaNet's list of all fansites. GuildWiki was listed here at one time, but it appears it was removed per discussion at Talk:Guild_Wars/Archive_4#Wiki_fansites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Utopia Section?

I know this Game has been canceled, BUT it has been confirmed in the Newest PC Gamer magazine that the game already had Pre-Production Art(by Jaime Jones) for it and Ideas. Also a Working Continent that could be soon added to the now known continents in the World in Tryia(Cantha, Elona, Tyria). Was wondering will there soon be a section that will be going into little bit more description about "Guild Wars Utopia" and its Mesoamerican themed world and its production and what lead it up to its cancellation in detail as of ideas for the game and what features that might would be in the game "IF" were to be released? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That sort of thing belongs on fan-sites, not here. Documenting speculation of what might have been in it had it been released would likely be deleted from Wikipedia as soon as it was added. There are three sections on one of WP's policies that address this: See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, and WP:NOT#GUIDE. --15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.151.51 (talk)

Well The Pre-Production Art was not speculation as the Artist officially Quoted Himself. That would not be considered speculation there b/c the Artist quotes and the Pictures that were for the unreleased game did prove the game was in some sort of production "ALREADY" which meant it could be added in the article as the production stages has already been started stated from an official source. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It could perhaps state that a fourth campaign had been started then abandoned. That one sentence pretty much wraps up the sum of the released knowledge about it, and I honestly fail to see how that information is of any value in the article. Do you have any idea how many games have either abandoned expansions or content dropped from expansions? It's not an uncommon thing, and only of value to trivia fanatics, and really belongs in a dedicated fan sites more than a general purpose encyclopedia. --71.227.151.51 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

One artist's comments are hardly notable. The article used to note that a fourth campaign was in production, but that's pretty much ancient history now and I would claim doesn't belong in the article. Eric Sandholm 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag re: Professions

I disagree with the merge tag in the professions section. This article should be a generic overview, the campaign articles should be the more detailed content. If anything, I would argue that more of this article should be purged and pushed out the the individual campaign articles, not the other way around. --71.227.151.51 15:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the six core professions aren't exclusive to any specific campaign. -- Gordon Ecker 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Advert

A few sentences of the article read like an advertisement. I skimmed through it and edited out some buzzwords and servile phrases. There might be more, overall is OK. --Voidvector 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with a lot of the changes you made, they seemed fine or better to me but the difference is so minimal I won't bother changing it. You've actually added some incorrect grammar as well. 58.110.139.87 05:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with Voidvector. I have been trying to eliminate as much of the marketing jargon from the Guild Wars articles as I can. It was already a difficult fight stopping people from plastering "CORPG" as the game genre everywhere. More can be done to make these articles factual instead of sympathetic. Eric Sandholm 12:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Auction

I don't know how much this goes towards a direct criticism, which it is not, but it's definitely a strong indicator and can be refferenced. The game is criticised a lot for a lack of an effective trading system. Numerous changes have been made none of which have pleased the community due to their ineffectiveness. Here, [1] is a link to an article about the GW Guru Auction Site, which has taken the place of a real in game auction or trading system, currently lacking in the game. I suggest somehow adding it to the article to point out the player community has had to organise to cover a severe flaw in an online game which has been ignored by Arena Net. 58.110.139.87 05:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a mention of criticism in the individual campaign articles, including the criticism about trading difficulty in Guild Wars Prophecies#Critical response. This overview article does not have a criticism section currently, and I would oppose adding one without seeing some strongly sourced criticism of the game as a whole. (The recent PC Gamer article was a fawning mess and should be disregarded.) It may not be a long wait for such articles to appear, as surely the approach of GW2 will cause the gaming press to write retrospectives on GW1. Eric Sandholm 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the site you linked, I'm aware of at least one other active community created GW auction sites, plus a handful that seem to get little traffic. I don't feel that WP should specifically link to the guru one you listed, as it would essentially be advertising, favoring that one in the article over all others.

As for documenting the criticism, I agree with Eric S. The Guru article is obviously biased to encourage use of their solution to what they identify to be a problem. I would prefer to wait for a better sourced (and more neutral sourced) publication of GW criticisms from the gaming press. --71.227.151.51 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the previous poster. Because of the lack of built in auction house within the Guild Wars game itself, there have been numerous auction sites created on the internet for users to use. I have researced this at considerable length and found the three most active auction sites are Guild Wars Auctions, the one previously mentoined called Guru Auctions and another called GWAuction. It appears that these sites compete heavily between each other so I don't a particular site should be favoured by adding it to the main article. As an alternative, perhaps there should be a general mention within the article itself about the lack of built in auction house and the need for users to choose an alternative web based solution for themselves.--90.193.106.87 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing standards for fiction

The primary fiction guideline, WP:FICT, has recently been made much more stringent. What used to be allowed and recommended, such as lists of characters, is now mostly forbidden, with the exception of characters of notability comparable to Superman or Hamlet (which no Guild Wars character has). Moreover, WP:WAF#Plot summaries now recommends having no in-universe text for a series of fiction articles. All editors of the Guild Wars articles are requested to reduce or eliminate content that violates these guidelines. It might even make sense to merge the GW1 articles back in to this article. Eric Sandholm 14:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

To give an idea of the sort of rewrite I think is needed here is my first attempt for the Prophecies article. It will, of course, need to be polished and properly cited. Eric Sandholm 15:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Complements to you on your rewrite. It doesn't seem that it needs much polish - but your edits to my edits in the past have shown you are more thorough on these things than I. :) It comes across quite well and certainly a lot less ...um... fan-ish.
I have been using Half Life 2, of feature article status, as a rough guide for an 'ideal' page. Seeing the way that it structures the links to the other episodes, to which it is much more strongly linked than any of the Guild Wars campaigns to each other, there is agreement from me that pulling prophecies back into this page is not a terrible proposition and will allow the page to follow the video game formatting guide more closely.
Finally, I note the clean up on the character section. I think that it is still worthwhile having, but it should be pulled in under gameplay. I might toy with this later. --Aspectacle 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So I'm faintly horrified at my attempt at writing about GW combat, but I'm out of time at the moment. I don't think that the character stuff needs much more than described in the gameplay section now. Revert, fix as you will I'll continue to mess with it later. --Aspectacle 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't guidelines not rules and thus the article can stay as it is without being changed because the guideline is just what some people preferred? 122.104.225.84 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are rules. What gives you the impression that they can be ignored with impunity? Eric Sandholm 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

"A guideline article is any page that: (1) recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid; and (2) reflects consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

"A policy article is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions."

They're both rules, but policies are generally stricter than guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Because I say so" is no reason to except oneself from guidelines, which is what anon was proposing. If they are not to be followed, why even have them? Also, guidelines are nowadays de facto policies: AfD routinely cites guideline violations as reasons to delete articles. Eric Sandholm 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote you, "recommends actions", meaning you can choose not to. I was not proposing anything. Guide lines are not policies - otherwise they would be policies. Perhaps making the guide line mentioned a policy was too strict and action for the wide scope of the wiki as a whole considering the extremity of its intent. You asked a good question, why have guide lines at all if they are to be considered the same as policies. We don't need to follow the guide line in this article, it is fine as it is. 122.104.225.84 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you read my initial comment closely, you'll note that I was talking about plot/story sections in all Guild Wars articles. Guild Wars (series) itself has no such section, so I am unsure what you mean by "this article ... is fine as it is". More importantly, you and User:Gordon Ecker are placing too much emphasis on boilerplate and not enough on the substance of the guideline. In the modern Wikipedia, guidelines have enough teeth to get stuff deleted. Eric Sandholm 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that an exception should be made in this case, I'm just pointing out that exceptions can be made in some cases if they are backed up a convincing reason. Guidelines are suggestions which are generally reasonable and generally supported by the editing community. Guidelines don't get stuff deleted, people agreeing with the suggestions in guidelines get stuff deleted. Editorial decisions on Wikipedia are made primarily through concensus, it takes more than one person to form a concensus and "the article is fine as it is" and "the guideline is supported by some other people" are not convincing reasons to make an exception. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Guidelines don't ... people agreeing with them do" is a distinction without a difference on WP. It's akin to the famous adage that guns don't get people deleted, people using guns etc. Anyway, I think this argument is stale; over 6 months have passed between comments, and I don't think anyone has proposed a change to the articles as they now stand. Eric Sandholm 06:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Character Select

The picture of thecharacter selection screen is outdated. There is now a new character select screen promoting Eye of the North, instead of Nightfall. Alkerio 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. For future reference, just boldly fix these problems when you find them. Eric Sandholm 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagrement with offical wiki

Most players use GuildWiki, it is the most up to date and has the better talk pages. It's as if MediaWiki came out with it's own version of wikipedia, so wikipedia was wiped off Google 88.110.248.138 (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing for some change in the article? If so, what? --Per Abrahamsen (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that claim is that it's just that, a claim - it's not documented via a WP:RS anywhere from what I've been able to find, and because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, we need external documentation. Also, while GuildWiki is not linked directly, you can already reach it by following the external link labelled "ArenaNet's listing of recognized Guild Wars fansites", where links to GuildWiki as well as all other fansites are listed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above, Wikipedia articles are not written for the players. It simply does not matter to Wikipedia that most players do X or use Y. Per WP:EL, open wikis are generally not suitable for external links. The official wiki, in addition to being a wiki supported by ArenaNet, is connected directly to the game, which might, now that I think about it, warrant a comment in the article– how many other games feature player-maintained documentation so prominently? Which wiki is better is a matter of taste; I, for one, am not terribly fond of a lot of rubbish that has accrued in GuildWiki over the years. The thing that set GuildWiki apart—its builds database—was jettisoned because the wiki participants could not come to consensus on how to run that section. The official wiki has better images, cleaner skill pages, better descriptions of game mechanics, more active users, and, most importantly, participation from ArenaNet employees. This makes it a "meritable" link target per WP:EL, much more so than the modern GuildWiki, a pale shadow of its former self, can be. Eric Sandholm 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandholm, the official wiki is, I believe, widely used and with the integration in Guild Wars and participation of developers surely has the upper edge. Malangyar (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving Vertically

"(but with only two degrees of freedom: characters cannot move vertically). "

What is that supposed to mean? In the game you can move in any direction you like (except up and down). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.51.154 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused - you seem to have answered your own question. Vertical movement is up/down. Or were you asking something else? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No... it means you cannot jump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.150.9 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

on the ps3

now ns is a sony 2 ptarte at cum to the ps3 r is at a pc onle one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.134.72 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

what the f*** did you just say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.41.21 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I think he might be asking if Guild Wars is coming to the PS3 or is solely for PC. The answer is of course solely for the PC. Malangyar (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I realise that your comment is 2 years old, Malangyar, but we have since received information that GW2 might in fact be made for console as well ;D. --84.26.78.183 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not happened so far, and currently no plans have been expressed for Guild Wars or Guild Wars 2, to appear on any console platform 86.20.65.68 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Lock to Cutdown on Vandalism

Looking at the history of the Article of the Game I would Suggest a article lock for non-users and the newly registered users so vandalism would almost completely halt as to the Other Guild Wars articles. The Proof is in the Article history. Any editors agree? --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PROT for site policy on page protection, specifically where it says "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.".

Thus far, the page clearly lacks evidence of "heavy and persistent vandalism" that would be needed to justify indefinite semi-protection. If the vandalism here does increase significantly, we can submit the page to WP:RFP, but even then I would only expect temporary semi-protection, lasting at most a couple weeks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How much would vandalism have to increase for this page to be semi-protected? I would not mind seeing it protected for a few weeks to how it goes as of a few others. Indefinitely is still an option if they do increase seeing vandalism was made so far from unresisted users from the past. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection has been tried before on this article. It is blissfully quiet while the protection lasts, but we are back to square one when it expires. This page will have to have dozens of vandalisms every day for weeks on end before it can be permanetly semi protected. I am afraid that people interested in this topic will just have to be vigilant and scrutinize all edits, at least until Wikipedia adopts some form of stable version system. Eric Sandholm 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki link yet again

Apparently GuildWiki is not even listed on Anet's official list of fansites any more. Iin Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki, a consensus was reached that GuildWiki would be a redirect to Guild Wars. In Talk:Guild Wars/Archive 4#Wiki fansites, the consensus was further amended to link only the official list of fansites as it was deemed comprehensive, authoritative, and neutral. Now that GuildWiki is no longer reachable by obvious links from GuildWiki, one of two steps needs to be taken: either a new consensus to delete GuildWiki (the redirect) should be reached, or we should restore a link to GuildWiki in this article. My personal preference is the former for reasons I've laid out a few sections above. Eric Sandholm 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The current redirect links to the wikipedia page on Wikia. --Lemming64 15:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that's even more nonsensical a redirect. I guess I am calling for GuildWiki's deletion. Eric Sandholm 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that GuildWiki had fallen so far from ArenaNet's grace. The closest example is Wowwiki which is a redirect to a link on the bottom of the World of Warcraft page. As GuildWiki will not be listed at the bottom of this page as has been discussed before I agree with deletion. --Aspectacle (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Elementalist

Why does Elementalist redirect here? --24.74.36.191 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because no in depth game info about mechanics or proffesions is availible here. Try Guild Wars Wiki.--70.71.240.170 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Official Wiki

The official page links to the official Wiki. There is no need to include it in the list of external links. The same could be said about the fan links, but I understand it as it keeps spam to a minimum here. However, the official wiki there is not necessary. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the link, but if it's done, then I would suggest that the other official site link be reworded to say "The official Guild Wars website and wiki". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki is still the prevailing consensus on linking to a GW wiki from WP. GWW is essentially a trivial variant of the now mostly defunct GuildWiki. Also whether the official site links to the official wiki or not should not be the inclusion criterion; indeed, the wiki is not primarily a creation of ArenaNet, and, as required by WP:EL, it is a meritable, accessible and appropriate external site. Eric Sandholm 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is accessible from the main site as an external link, that makes it unnecessary. We don't link to every page in a site just because it fits the EL inclusion, usually called "follow the spirit, not the letter" of the guideline. However, since there was a discussion I have no problem keeping it here if that was the consensus (even though GuildWiki redirecting to Wikia kind of makes your point moot). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That it is reachable by links from guildwars.com is irrelevant to WP. This wiki is the most notable fan-maintained open wiki about the game, and therefore deserves the link. You can argue (and it is an argument that I personally am sympathetic to) that open wikis about games are not worth linking from WP as a matter of principle, but such is the established norm across many dozens of game articles on WP and I don't see a compelling reason to make the GW articles an exception. Eric Sandholm 07:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no need for wikilawyering. With that kind of thought, we would link to every page in guildwars.com just because it doesn't contradict EL. I would say you have a conflict of interest with that wiki and this article, but I am not interested in pointing fingers. As I said, I don't like it, but if that was the result of the discussion, I am not against it. Just don't like it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you haven't apparently understood a single point I've tried to make. I am sure you know where I encourage you to shove your pointless accusations. Eric Sandholm 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are walking the personal attack border. Please be more open, being so close to a topic should not cloud your neutral point of view. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, if the topic ever does come up again, the official wiki tends to be inaccurate on many individual pages, since GuildWiki and its people have been around longer, the pages on GuildWiki tend to be better maintained. The administrators of the game, while having their personal pages on the official site, do not take active roles in the site itself, and concern themselves more with the game. 70.108.157.235 (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to point out some of these inaccuracies? In response to your claim that GuildWiki's pages tend to be better maintained, GuildWiki's articles for the Fissure of Woe and the Underworld lack monster lists, and none of its' elite or challenge mission articles have been updated to reflect the November 13th, 2008 update. I'm not aware of any ArenaNet employees are active on GuildWiki, so I don't see why their low activity level on the official wiki could be used as edivence that it's better. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, if you want to get technical, I couldn't find any page about a Fissuere of Woe. Second, on the Fissure of Woe and Underworld pages, there are links to a catagory of creatures, and the GuildWiki pages have tips on how some things are helpful, while the official pages list more generic information. I'm not sure about the elite missions, but for early game articles, such as quest articles, the official wiki is either innacurate or not clearly detailed. 63.119.181.170 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at this page in passing, and... I can understand linking to the Official Wiki, since it is official after all, but don't you think that WIKIPEDIA should also have a link to the WIKIA wiki? If we (GuildWiki) have to be part of Wikia, I think we at least deserve a link (haven't you got those "Wikia has a wiki on [thus-and-such]" boxes?). Besides, each site has its merits - GuildWarsWiki is frequented by ANet staff, and GuildWiki tends to be more comprehensive. 163.150.227.238 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is not Wikipedia, and being on Wikia does not confer any benefits in linking from here. I don't think guildwiki is still more comprehensive (with the more frequent edits at guildwarswiki, GWW has caught up to if not surpassed GW, especially on the newer topics), but I don't see anything wrong with linking to both: They are very similar and it can be useful to have both links if one happens to be down. --Xeeron (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo. Anyway, I don't object to linking to the one on Wikia in addition to the official one, but IMO we shouldn't remove the link to the official wiki without a better justification than allegations of unspecified inaccuracies or the fact that the game happens to have an unofficial wiki hosted on a website which happens to share some management with Wikipedia. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New player statistics

On the 26 February 2008, the official website stated that the game has sold 5 million games worldwide, I have noticed that this has not been updated on the page. Also, PcPowerplay Australia (issue 151, page 40), stated that Guild Wars was the 8th best pc seller of all time. I feel that this should be included somewhere within the article. Eru illuv (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribute System

Is it really appropriate to say the Guild Wars attribute system is similar to D&D skill point system? For the most part, D&D skills are non-combat skills, and to my knowledge they do not have an exponentially increasing cost to increase ranks in a skill. - 144.226.230.36 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not similar to the skill point system of D&D, it is similar to D&D's point buy ability score generation system. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

January 2008?

From the current version of the article:

"Because principal Guild Wars development has ended, the alpha test was closed in January 2008"

What? Eye of the North was released in August 2007 and the Bonus Mission Pack was released in November 2007. Under the narrow definition of closed pre-release testing for actual products then anything in December 2007 or January 2008 could not possibly qualify as alpha testing. Under a broader definition which includes the testing of patches before they go live, alpha testing would only cease if they stopped developing patches, which they have not yet done. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is bogus. I know for a fact that the alpha servers are still running, though of course I cannot cite my source. What the editor might have meant is that the alpha test team composed of non-employees of Anet was disbanded in January. (Actually, I thought it was earlier than that.) Eric Sandholm 06:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The volunteer portion of the alpha test was closed in January but that information would only be verifiable through internal documents covered by the NDA. I am going to edit the sentence to be more factually accurate but, as we know, it is impossible to cite references.MammonLord (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The way it reads now, it appears to completely ignore past alpha tests for all prior campaigns of the original series. At the very least, it should mention that it's the most recent alpha test that closed in January, or the GW2 alpha test that closed in January. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't discuss what was tested at any point within the alpha so I am unable to elaborate further.MammonLord (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. But, read my prior post, you seem to have missed the point.

The way it reads now, THE alpha closed in January 2008 (the one and only alpha?!?) That ignores the fact that prior alphas existed for all prior campaigns from the original series. At the very least, it should be worded to clarify that it's the most recent alpha has closed. Better yet; purge the mention entirely. It's material that's better addressed in fansites, and does little, if anything to improve encyclopedic coverage here. The original wording that alphas are used was more than adequate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Linux

Guild Wars is running normal on Wine (tested with rc2). Although it is not officialy supported, there are some instruction on how to succesfully run GW on Wine: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_on_Wine. Maybe we should mention the Linux platform somewhere in the main article? (as a not-officially suported, but running well) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeslaBoy (talk • contribs) 07:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Movement while attacking

User:Gordon Ecker recently made this edit claiming a "correction". However, the claim

this is not the case for ranged attacks, whi[ch] allow the target to be p[u]rsued while attacking

is false as stated. All attacks occur while stationary. To verify this, mount a siege devourer using a bow, activate the skill HYAHHHHH! (ends when you stop moving), and then attack a target out of range. HYAHHHHH! will end when the attack begins. Technically, you can begin movement before an attack animation completes (sometimes called the "Narcism shuffle step" or the "Chiizu dance", after players who popularized the technique), but this merely cuts down the stationary period of the attack, and moreover can be done with any melee, range or caster weapon.

Alternatively, this edit might be stating the (true) fact that ranged attacks are harder to kite away from than melee attacks. If so, this should be stated differently. Eric Sandholm 11:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that was a typo and Gordon Ecker meant to say "This is not the case for melee attacks". --Xeeron (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that changes anything. The statement would still be false for the same reasons. Eric Sandholm 12:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Xeeron is correct, it was an editing mistake and was supposed to be melee attacks. And characters will pursue foes while making melee attacks if the foes move far enough away. This can be tested on Isle of the Nameless against the Master of Survival. It generally doesn't work well against the Master of Enchantment or Master of Healing because their movement areas are too small. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

However the current version of the paragraph is a hideous mess filled with incorrect information. I plan on cleaning it up. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More Pics

Maybe some more pictures would be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jame320 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

merge

I request that Guild Wars Prophecies be merged into this article and have added a merge tag as appropriate. ^Alex J _Fox 02:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See centralised discussion at Talk:Guild Wars Prophecies#Merge. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

What's up with the weird bit of vandalism talking about porno and sex, relatively high up on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.35.10 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New picture..?

Why Aren't they using a picture from a box of the game that is actually used? From what I know, the picture on this page wasn't used on any of the guild wars game boxes. 216.119.178.127 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it needs a new image. As the link is dead, plus its an 05 picture!!! 96.53.219.158 (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

PvE/PvP Areas

I was wondering if there should perhaps be some further explaination of the starting setup of PvE and PvP characters, at the moment the wiki page seems to suggest that PvP character start out at the maximum level but doesnt explain that a PvP character is limited in the area he or she can access, this could be take to mean that PvP characters can start at the maximum level in the same place as the PvE players when infact there is an elaborately designed system of 'Battle Isles' that the PvP-only character can access, and the PvE character must, if the wish to partake in PvP, get to on their own by progressing through the campaign to specific points where travel is allowed.

Just thought i would run this buy people before I make any changes to the article myself, incase its a bad idea.--Nyimen (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, somehow "PvP only" already implies that you can not visit PvE zones, but if you want to elaborate on the design of the battle isles, go ahead, this is a feature of the game worth mentioning. --Xeeron (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Length

Has the article always been this lengthy? It needs to be cut down a bit. (Xu Davella (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Its been this length for a while. ^_^ I think that the guild section and the list of the different PvP types are also candidates for trimming. I disagree with calling attack skills 'Feats' - my internal definition of a feat from d&d doesn't match well. Perhaps we can simple call them weapon attack skills to avoid introducing terminology from elsewhere? --Aspectacle (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Operation Type

So is Guild War just a Multiplayer game By which type of forms (See Below for definitions)

• MMO (all operations are online)
• Online (patch update and events, but no items, maps...etc added to system)

All items and story-playable content are available through purchasable Expansion Pack only.

• Online Multiplayer (all operations online, but not necessarily Persistent World)
• Multiplayer (Any game that have Single Player and allows player to play online e.g. Neverwinter Nights)
• Community-based online (Any Single Player games, online are available through Publisher server e.g. Battlefield 2 rent server, Battle.net)

Events, Patch Update, Competition are available. Limited playable content update is available, but usually offered only if company has a planned roadmap / franchise, game anniversary or beta fan stuff for upcoming episodes of game. Community contributions like modding, adding news playable contents, cinematic maybe allowed depending on the Publisher plans.

I suggest we use these terms, because the method of categorization can displace at the entire article viewpoint. MMO and Single Player games companies are very different from each other. As Single Player game developer, sometimes do buy community-based studios that makes modding, news items...etc. While MMO games operation is usually similar to multimedia, where each systems that require a new set of features (like game physics, security), they usually go look for Specialized companies.

In multimedia they are Special Effects group, in gaming they are game physics, game graphics developing / research group. Since currently they are very few or close to none-overlaps, I think it is best for them to keep separate. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been removing the term "online" from the description, and your post above really doesn't make it clear as to the reason for this (perhaps it's the broken english that is causing it to not be clear - if so, please be patient while others try to request clarification and try to understand your meaning). If you have a specific change you want, I suggest you focus on that in your post.

The line you are trying to change reads "Guild Wars is an episodic series of multiplayer online role-playing games developed by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft." The game is multiplayer (remember, while now rare on PCs, multiplayer does not necessitate online), so the additional term that it is played online is appropriate (as it can only be played online - no offline play available), it is episodic as each expansion added new storyline and territories, and it is a role-playing game. So, the terms do appear to be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You should know the term "online" refers to any topic or part of internet (usually public internet), where anybody can access it without any restrictions / procedures or require use of anything. A gaming requiring purchases is generally not considered online, because its involvement required to participate requires another mediums, in this case, the single player game developing industries' distributors / vendors.

Online can also be use to refer to any parties, group or even the entire community. What you mention on Multiplayer is rare in PC nowadays, that isn't true. Most single player games still have multiplayers due to financial issues of upkeeping a server. Though some people think Online refers to only to topics within the internet and platform console are not online, unless different mediums (e.g. PC and Console) can interact together directly. Indirectly would more like be Webgames (Browser-based). I think this is probably because Virtual Communities itself is a form of Cyberspace and though Cyberspace can be standalone or be part of a communities amongst many, it doesn't necessary have to be online (within the public internet) to operate. With that said, I don't think Guild War should be considered online, since its involvement its quite directed at the single player audience than the general public of internet (aka online). --75.154.186.241 (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you were going with much of your post - so I'll remain focussed with my reply on your edits to remove the term "online".

You may want to look at the Wikipeida article for "Online game". In the context of the sentence you are wanting to change, Guild Wars clearly meets the description of online game. By that alone, the reference should remain. I have no objection to clarifying the article by wiki-linking "online" to the article for online game. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Online" does not imply "free". Despite being not a free game, GW is certainly an online one. --Xeeron (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is it Guild Wars (series)? Shouldn't it just be Guild Wars? (Since that directs back there anyway.)

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If Guild Wars was used for disambiguation, I'd understand, but like this it does not really make sense. --Xeeron (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that by adding "series", it helps clarify that the article is not about the first campaign. When Guild Wars Prophecies was originally released, it was simply named "Guild Wars" ... it wasn't until the additional chapters / campaigns were created that the first one was retroactively called Guild Wars Prophecies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense from a historical position, but now that the first campaign has been named Prophecies for a good while, this page should be moved to Guild Wars. --Xeeron (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like Resident Evil then, I guess. (It used to be called Resident Evil (series).) Should someone move now?

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 21:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination?

Are there any references to support the assertions in the new discrimination section? I've honestly never heard of widespread problems with the support system discriminating against people. I've always thought the information they give was in line with other MMORPGs. I'm strongly inclined to delete the section. --Aspectacle (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Barek. ^_^ --Aspectacle (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This article needs more content about the music (critically acclaimed) and concept artwork, both of which are very significant elements of the brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.252.84 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not Free free?

You can download and play Guild Wars for a free trial of 10 hours but after that you are required to BUY the game to continue playing the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.225.211 (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Logo

I added a link tag for the Guild Wars Logo if someone would be kind enough to upload a image for that. I am just trying to get this page more fleshed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoko4321 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

help with account name

if you live in california and for the account name what do you put after your acount name like just say your acount name is qawsrfgth do you put qawsrfgth@ncsoft.com ,.net respond if you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.48.93 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5