Jump to content

Talk:Guild Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Guild Wars (series))

CORPG

[edit]

Given the fact that the phrase "CORPG" never caught on other than when used in context of ArenaNet press release/propaganda, I am replacing all reference of it with either MMORPG, Online RPG or something similar. --72.229.239.90 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whos idea was it?

[edit]

I would like to know who came up with the original six professions idea in Prophecies. Markireland (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC) 11/21/2012[reply]

CORPG

[edit]

We can't just change the genre which Developers are classifying it as just because someone thinks it isn't known enough amongst people. MMORPG is Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. CORPG is Competitive Online Role-Playing Game and if devs state that's the genre of the game, then that's how we're supposed to call it.


http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php

"Is Guild Wars an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)?" "Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). "

The article's approach to classifying the game should be based on how it was received, not by how the developers decided to market it. Wikipedia is not beholden to reinforce a company's advertising campaigns. As it stands, "CORPG" seems to be a marketing term invented by Anet which did not gain any use or recognition outside of Guild Wars. The term therefore does not improve the reader's understanding of the subject. However, we should also still make mention of the fact that Anet attempted to market this neologism. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make note of the fact that ArenaNet marketed it this way, but I'm not sure where to put it. Wilhelm von Freiben (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of the article: Guild Wars (Franchise) vs Guild Wars (Game)

[edit]

Perhaps it's just me, but at least coming from an individual who has played both Guild Wars games, it seems like this article is focused almost entirely on the original game rather than common elements of the franchise. For example, the article goes into a pretty detailed discussion of PvE, PvP, and guild makeup as they are in the first game without any mention of how they are in the second game. Similarly, there is discussion of the professions in the first game but nothing regarding those in the second game. Should this be changed, since the game Guild Wars has its own page? It seems to me that either equivalent information should be added regarding the second game (since this page is meant to be about the series, not just one game) or any information specific to one or the other should be removed unless discussed in relation to how it differs from the other. As it is now, this is a page nominally about the series but actually about the structure of only the first game in that series. 129.255.1.140 (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article originally dealt with the "series" of GW1 games, i.e. Prophecies through EotN. GW2, as the first nominal sequel, wasn't added in until much later. Moving forward, as there are more expansions for GW2, the article should be somewhat self-balancing, though that's not to imply that it couldn't use some cleanup as well. I suppose it's possible that we could split on the basis of the GW1 sub-series vs the GW franchise as a whole, but that seems drastic. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Monuments Edits and Source of Evidence

[edit]

I am not affiliated with ArenaNet, NCSoft, nor any party involved in the production of the Guild Wars IP. However, references to my own scholarly writings, which are peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal, and for which I receive absolute no financial gain and make available online for free, are being considered a conflict of interest by other editors.

See revision 774435633.

I made these edits in good faith and identified myself as the author of the work at the time of the edit (which was over a year ago).

I do not believe this to be a conflict of interest as explained here: Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest; however, would like some clarification.

The edits that I made were:

, items, and even a Hall of Monuments for the player character. Some of these rewards not only advance the particular character being played at the time, but also unlock features of the game account-wide, and rewards in future games.

In addition to this victory may also award points which contribute towards completion of character or account based titles and monuments.

Please sign your comments, and thank you for providing disclosure. To be specific, WP:SELFCITE is the applicable part of the COI guideline. It is not just a question of whether your paper is reliable or not, but whether other editors consider it to be relevant in supporting the claims in the article. For example, if the sourced passage describing basic game features were to be challenged, it would be fairly easy to find a commonly recognized source such as a game review. It is unusual to cite an academic paper in these circumstances, which makes a self-citation all the more unseemly. I am declining this edit request, without prejudice, pending discussion that establishes consensus. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guild Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guild Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MMO or CORPG

[edit]

These been a bit of a debate through edits as to whether or not this is an MMO. The developers possibly classify it as a CORPG. However, others have classified it as an MMO - for example, when it was awarded the "best MMORPG". Previous consensus was to call it an MMO per the sources in the article. But perhaps we can mention both categories? Are they really mutually exclusive? - Bilby (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously, as above. The issue with "CORPG" is that this phrase is a proprietary marketing term that does not see any use outside of Guild Wars; it is not an actual genre and therefore cannot be given as the game's genre from a neutral, commonly understood viewpoint. Additionally, the CORPG label was only ever claimed for the original game; GW2 is indisputably an MMO, and as a series article this needs to take all of the games into account. However imprecise some believe the label to be, "MMORPG" still gives the most coherent description of the series. There is no reason why Anet's definition of "CORPG" cannot be discussed, but it must not be given undue weight. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Elementalist" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Elementalist has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Elementalist until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle lion" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Battle lion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Battle lion until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ascalon(guild wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Ascalon(guild wars) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Ascalon(guild wars) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guild_Wars&oldid=1207478086"