Talk:Guild Wars (video game)/Archive 1

Archive 1

criticisms

I re-added a criticism which was removed because the removee stated that there was no citation and the aledged problem had been fixed anyway. I think that the more appropriate action to take in this case would be to request a citation be found to show the problem existed rather than removing it all together. Many reviews were made prior to the fix being made, so it would have been a valid criticism of the game at its release as so would be suitable for this page. --Aspectacle 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism!!

Someone vandalised the mesmer description, I'll go remove it now...

story section?

For a wikipedia article, the story section for this page seems a bit legthy. Any ideas on things to shorten/omit? Ivynn Hammersong 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tough question. It could perhaps be shortened by trimming out some of the lore.

For example the following is mostly lore and not really core to the storyline: "Kryta is the domain of a relatively new religious group called the White Mantle. The White Mantle are an organization who were formed by Saul D'Alessio to fight the Charr when the Krytan royalty proved unable to. After destroying Ascalon, the Charr headed to Kryta and Orr to destroy the two remaining kingdoms. Saul and his White Mantle Army defeated the invading Charr with the aid of their "Unseen Gods". After the Mantle defeated the Charr, they went on a counter offensive through the Shiverpeaks, but Saul, like Rurik, died a martyr in the icy mountain range some time between the Sundering and Rurik's exodus." It could be trimmed down to: "Kryta is the home of the White Mantle, a religious order who have successfully repelled the attacks of the Charr with the aid of their "Unseen Gods"."

The reference to ecto in the FOW/UW section can surely go. --Aspectacle 23:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

suggested profession move

I don't have any particular objections to the move. This article, more so than the other campaign articles, is pretty weak. The argument for split was fairly weak so it always feels a bit vulnerable to me to being merged back into the Guild Wars article because the only thing which isn't shared with other campaigns is the plot!

If the move goes ahead consider adding in the other professions too because half of the reverts to the 'main' page will be people adding the other four professions in (this has happened before). Perhaps duplicate the profession information; put the profession name for the main page and details on the campaign? --Aspectacle —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If such a move would happen, it seems like the main Guild Wars page would contain the "core" aspects (such as core Professions, major PvP areas) with links to the main page from each of the campagin pages. If this would be updated, I would not object this move. Ivynn Hammersong 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guildbox.jpg

Image:Guildbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added fair use to the image. --Aspectacle (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I request we merge this article into Guild Wars (series) and have added a merge tag accordingly ^Alex J _Fox 02:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting this merge request. The articles were split apart on concensus long ago and there is no apparent shift in concensus or indeed any reason to merge them. Article length guidelines would discourage such a merge anyhow. Eric Sandholm 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the decision to leave them as seperate articles, as I believe due to the fact that their is now 2 other full campaigns to this game and a large expansion pack, there should be a central article covering them all albeit, not in as much detail as this goes into. ^Alex J _Fox 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Barek#Guild_Wars_merger for my reasons behind the request ^Alex J _Fox 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The following text has been moved from User talk:Barek#Guild Wars merger in order to maintain a central location for the discussion.

My overall understanding of this situation is, for articles on games at least, is that Wikipedia should cover the general information on the game, release dates, genre, developer team, content and so on and so forth. Whilst I realise certain games require a long article to show all of the necessary games, Guild Wars Prophecies is more to the standard you would expect to find on a wiki dedicated to the game Guild Wars. This alone may be totally acceptable to most people but it raises the question of what to do regarding the content that exists now (2 further campaigns and an expansion). The Article Guild Wars (series) Covers all of the content but no independent articles exist for Guild Wars Factions or Nightfall. As you are well aware the number one rule in the Manual of Style is consistency, so I requested to merge to try and achieve consistency in the articles regarding this game. On reflection article length does pose a problem so I think the preferred solution would be to take the relevant information from Guild Wars Prophecies and put it into Guild Wars (series). I look forward to your input on this. ^Alex J _Fox 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of your premise is flawed. There are seperate articles for Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall, and Guild Wars: Eye of the North. As your primary driver in this appears to be the consistency issue, I believe the better solution to maintain consistency is to remain with the original solution of having Guild Wars Prophecies as its own article and not merge it into Guild Wars (series). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it appears in my late night wiki-trawling last night that I must have made some glaring search errors when looking for those articles so, for my short-sightedness in that respect I apologise to all concerned. For consistencies sake though, I stand by my opinion that we should have either an article to cover the series as a whole or an individual article for each game. As the quality of the individual articles is quite high I would question the need for the article Guild Wars (series). ^Alex J _Fox 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To that, I would like to hear more opinions to consider before I add more to the discussion. I can see some issues that the Guild Wars (series) article has with WP:NOT#GUIDE, so an argument could be made to eliminate the "Guild Wars (series)" article and to move the non-guide content into the remaining campaign articles. However, doing that would result in considerable redundant content being added to all of the campaign articles. So I can also see the counter-argument to keep the "Guild Wars (series)" article as it would prevent the need to duplicate those common elements in all of the campaign articles.

I look forward to seeing other opinions on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to accept the assertion that WP needs either one umbrella article xor one article per released game. WP:NOT does not apply; none of the current articles is a game manual; no one can learn how to play the game from any of the articles, but they will get a broad perspective on what the game offers and how it was received by the players and the critics. I have taken some pains myself to keep excessive detail out of the articles and the only serious deficiencies that remain are with the in-universe plot sections. In the future, if Guild Wars 2 is released and becomes notable, the Guild Wars (series) article can be renamed to Guild Wars 1 (series); this change is premature today because GW2's potential release is far in the future. Eric Sandholm 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since all GW products share a large number of characteristics, merging GW (series) into GW prophecies would lead to a lot of dublicate content in the 4 remaining GW articles. The only option apart from keeping GW (series) that avoids such redundancy would be to merge all GW content into one single article. However such an article would be much to long for my liking. Therefore I disagree with the merger. --Xeeron (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the articles for the three GW games and the expansion pack all meet notability requirements then I see no reason to merge these into one article. Additionally, given that the three games are stand-alone, the expansion pack can be used with any of three, and that there are in-game benefits to having more than just one of the games plus the expansion pack, and that there are quests that span more than one game/exp-pack (e.g. Black Moa Chick) it seems like a "series" article is required to cover this type of information. And of course the GW franchise/world in general. I know I am adding this very late in the discussion but I hope that if it ever comes up again these arguments can be used to support having five articles. Argel1200 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the merge and also the removal of Guild Wars(series), because if you look at other game series they also have a page for the series and one for each game in the series(perhaps not all, but the more notable ones anyway). For example, look at Mario.202.53.199.72 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

composer??

Who is the composer? --TudorTulok (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Composer of the music? Jeremy Soule. Ivynn Hammersong (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism

Someone added some text about a player named "underworld barbie" and unrelated information about the player. I removed it. (Signed - A wikipedia reader) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.201.103 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

current criticism section

This article should definitely have a criticism section, but not one drawn almost exclusively from the Tom McNamara article (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2005/05/11/guild-wars), whose review is horribly one-sided and whose criticism boils down to Guild Wars being "not WoW". For example, McNamara lists the limited skillbar of 8, routinely being outnumbered by mobs, and the level cap at 20 as gameplay problems, but in fact, these are defining elements of the deep strategy inherent in the Guild Wars experience and are what differentiate GW from its mega-competitor of the era: WoW. I find McNamara's article a poor basis to weave GW criticism around. The GameSpot review of the time would be a much better foundation: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/guild-wars-review/1900-6123628/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhpop (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I've begun to rework the reception / criticisms section to give a more balanced representation of Guild Wars Prophecies' its actual initial reception. I've looked at reviews by some major publications - GameSpot, Eurogamer, GamesRader+ - and all heap abundant praise on various aspects of Guild Wars. It is abundantly clear than Tom McNamara's IGN rather negative, one-sided and heavily WoW-experience based review that the Wiki drew from nearly exclusively (before my edits) is an outlier on the review spectrum. The sections are far more balanced now, though they still need a lot of work.