Talk:Guild Wars 2

Archives
Until Septermber, 2007

Release Date

It is true that beta testing is supposed to begin for GW2 around the second-half or so of 2008. Thus, while the release date has yet to be released (as of now, in July of 2007), I would believe that it would be safe to say that the game, barring unforeseen mishaps in development and production, should be released sometime in late-2008 or early-2009. Thus, we should probably change the release dates listed on the site to 2008-2009. To me, this especially makes sense due to the company's development scheme- they don't use a "pay per month" plan, and thus they need to keep developing expansions, campaigns, or new games every six months to a year to keep profits maximized. --Brahman 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Speculation is original thought and therefore strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. There should never have been any dates listed. Eric Sandholm 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, someone had originally put up a release date that said "2009-2010?" Anyway, right now the official Guild Wars Wiki says that the game will be finished and go into beta testing sometime in the second half of 2008. However, this doesn't necessarily mean the game will be ready for a release by the end of next year, although I imagine that they will probably shoot for a Holiday 2008 release (again, we can't list this because it's not confirmed). --Brahman 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Official wiki cannot be cited: it is a wiki, and all information is player managed. 72.192.54.23 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

X-Play recently had an interview with someone from NCSoft, he said they were expecting GW2 to be in Open-Beta by the end of 2008. I don't remember his name, but it was the first episode of X-Play's new format. Though, this doesn't mean anything other than he expects it to be in Open-Beta. - 208.252.179.23 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That isn't new info. The article already mentions that the game is set to go into beta testing in 2008. Eric Sandholm 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New Storline/Lore info

Maybe this could be integrated into the article? --77.98.23.140 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to rename the 'Plot' section to 'Setting'. Is there any issue with this? --Aspectacle 22:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Eventually, this background lore should be replaced with the plot of the actual game, but until more information is released it is fine to have a "Setting" section. Eric Sandholm 23:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New info

PC gamer released a massive GW issue October 2007, expect updates regarding the GW2 background story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.197.12 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The setting summary is from PC Gamer, as you can easily verify by checking citations. New sections in talk pages go at the bottom. Eric Sandholm 14:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating

I doubt it's already been rated at such an early stage in developement. Can someone cite a source for this, or is it a copy / paste error? -- Gordon Ecker 10:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Tag

That delete tag up the top says the decision was to delete it.... It's still here and obviously GW2 is real. Should that tag perhaps be removed? 122.104.225.84 03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. AfD notes are never removed from talk pages. Eric Sandholm 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

lol, slightly fail. We'll sell you a Wizardboy, maybe? -- Armond 75.182.91.125 (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to the GW2 Wiki

The link to the GW2 wiki was initially suppressed by members of that wiki's community because of the mistaken belief that the owner of the Wiki, ArenaNet, wished for the wiki's existence to have a limited audience. After discussion with a developer at ArenaNet it has been said that censoring this wiki is unnecessary. Please members of the Guild Wars 2 Wiki community please stop reverting the link. Thank you. --Aspectacle (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ohai Aspectacle. -- Armond 75.182.91.125 (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this link does not qualify as a suitable external link per WP:EL. (I don't give two figs what ArenaNet and their cronies "wish".) Generally open wikis are not suitable for external linking at all, and this wiki is not, apparently, "meritable" and "accessible", and only tenuously "relevant" to the article. I really doubt any GW2 wiki is worth linking until the game is released, because until then it is just stuff about vaporware written by random internet people. Eric Sandholm 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya hai, Armond.  :)

Eric, sure if it doesn't meet with established linking criteria then that is fine. I put the message there to in an attempt to stop the revert war on the link being present or not. What is your opinion on linking to any wiki content about Guild Wars 2? The evolution of the link so far was from the Official Guild Wars Wiki page on Guild Wars 2 to a link to the same page with the same content on the infant Guild Wars 2 wiki and then directly to the Guild Wars 2 wiki itself. We could go back to linking the first - if that is more suitable? Otherwise, certainly delete it. I'm very bias here, due to being pretty closely involved to the linked pages, so I won't comment further.

"written by random internet people" - kinda like wikipedia or any wiki. ;) --Aspectacle (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this link then, pending release of the game. It is premature now, the cognoscenti already know about it, and players can learn about it from the myriad fansites and wikis. Eric Sandholm 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the hostility? You are also a "random internet [person]", are you not? --Plingggggg 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the "random internet people" who edit the official GW wiki and the official GW2 wiki are "random internet people" who play Guild Wars and, as such, are dedicated to making all data as accurate as possible. ArenaNet run the servers but the players run the wiki - but we also have input from various ArenaNet staff who can be asked to corroborate any data of which we are unsure. As such, it is a very reliable source of specific information unlike wikis run entirely by "random internet people" like, for example, this one. --Snograt ^{talk here} 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki is, as of yet, the most comprehensive source of Guild Wars 2 info, and it's all in one place. And does one additional link kill anyone? Currently you have a link to a discussion about the game, and another to the wiki for Guild Wars 1, totally different than the sequel. So linking to the wiki for the prequel game makes sense, but not the wiki for the actual game? Calor (t) 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter is not one of accuracy, but of meritabiliy. GW2 is, as of this moment, vaporware; the authors of GW2 wiki articles are, for the most part, people who have no first hand information. Let the game be released first, or at least go into beta, then we can link wikis. Please read WP:EL. Eric Sandholm 05:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Stabber, you're the boss ;) --Snograt ^{talk here} 11:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And the GuildWars2 wiki is simply collecting information released by ANet spokespeople and other reliable GW2 information sources such as ANet-sponsored magazine articles. Linking to the GW2 wiki means linking to a site dedicated to keeping track of what's on the horizon for that game, why would that link be unacceptable on Wikipedia? Pages in Category:Upcoming_video_games are loaded with links to sites providing information about their respective "vaporware", all of which are written by "for the most part, people who have no first hand information". Spore, for instance, has a link to a Spore wiki in the Additional Links. "Vaporware"? This is not Duke Nukem Forever. Do you have some particular gripe against GWW/GW2W? Readding the link, please don't remove it again without discussion, as the consensus above seems to be that the link should be here. Cite me specific policies the next time you want to remove it. Thanks. --Dirigible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.60.69 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the consensus. Please read WP:EL, as I have repeatedly said. Especially note the admonition against linking open wikis. Eric Sandholm 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with re-adding it at this time. Once the game is available, or at least a preview weekend has come, then it would be appropriate. As it stands, per WP:EL, the link should not exist at this time. I have no objection to linking to the GW2 article within GWW (which has within it a link to the GW2W) - but links directly to the GW2W are premature. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The link should be added becuase the Guild Wars Wiki while run by players is over seen by ANET staff. The information there is the best source for all information regarding this game that will be released. It is not fans speculating on what is in it, but releiable information from ANET and other public forums. Also the GWW contains chat logs from Gaile Grey the Community Spokesperson from ANET, these chat logs in game include information regarding Guild Wars 2. These logs and other first hand information are best accessed through their wiki.--129.21.100.55 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it is the best source of officially stated information about Guild Wars 2, but the sum of that knowledge is hardly greater than what is included on this wikipedia page. Don't stress about the link at the moment, when the official game wiki can offer much more implementation detail than the wikipedia page the link will come back. --Aspectacle (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Beta

I haven't got the magazine, but all I heard from Arenanet is that the Beta is not public. Not the one in 2008 anyway. 84.87.168.39 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Public beta has been mentioned by ArenaNet when talking about 2008 testing. Check out the second answer in the Computer and Video Games interview about Guild Wars 2. That information may have changed since April of last year because we haven't heard anything since? --Aspectacle (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

classes

Does anybody know what classes will be available? Will it be just the core classes or will all the classes introduced throughout the three campaigns be available? Heart2rokk (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been announced yet in this regard. Eric Sandholm 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC in one of the interviews last year it was stated that all ten GW1 professions were under consideration but a final decision had not been made, I'm not aware of any subsequent updates on GW2 professions. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When did the white mantle rule?

Re this edit.

When the feud was still happening (that is, at the time of GW1), the white mantle was still ruling. Therefore the shining blade qualifies as rebels. While the white mantle do not rule at the time of GW2, neither does that part of the article refer to the time of GW2. Note that, according to The Movement of the World, close to 150 years pass before the start of the establishment of a new capital (after LA is flooded) and present day in GW2. Anything happening at the time of establishment is clearly a thing of the past. --Xeeron (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The feud between the Mantle and the Shining Blade continue until some point after the GW:EN story but before present-day GW2. The entire story in the "Movement of the World" article is told from the temporal perspective (which the summary here shares, and I have modified to make it more plainly the case) of a historian in present-day GW2 writing about the past. In this perspective, the Mantle, who were deposed well before the end of the Prophecies story, are not in any sense "ruling", nor are the Shining Blade, who assume the role of the new Krytan royal guard at the end of Prophecies, in any sense "rebels". (We can take it as obvious that that part of the "history" of Kryta describes events after GW:EN.) Eric Sandholm 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not call someone deposed from power rebels, but your new wording "remnants" is very fitting. --Xeeron (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this piss anyone else off?

Telling us in march 2007 that in 2009 it comes out with nothing to do untill then cept the same crap and the dumb updates they do (like the new summoning stones they die and you cant use another for an hour)...64.4.228.107 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

this is off topic from GW2, has more to do with GW. But ill argue. The summoning stones can be reactivated if you go into another xplorable area. The 60 min thing is just so you dont have 2 summoned allies at one time.--70.190.36.152 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)