Talk:Guild Wars 2/Archive 2

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)

I have heard while pleaying GW that the realease date was 11/2/10 that could be feb or november i dont know...... (acording to a mate who asked at his local game shop) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutze1 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That mate of yours was then talking of a placeholder, of 2 November 2010. A lot of gameshops have been spewing that date around, but ANet hasn't confirmed anything, so, no. --84.26.78.183 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazon states: "This item will be released on November 2, 2010." and raised the price from $49.99 to $59.99. They also changed the box art. http://www.amazon.com/Guild-Wars-2-P...5716264&sr=8-1 However they also have the usual disclaimer "Official pricing and release date have not been announced by the publisher. These are estimates only and subject to change." 24.116.50.70 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just went to Gamestop today to put in a pre-order for it and the salesman there looked on the computer and said the release date will be June 2nd, 2011. Can't wait :) 69.253.39.117 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's most likely just a guess by Gamestop. Amazon.com once showed a release date as November of last year. They even sent me an email telling me of the date, but it was not accurate. ArenaNet will announce the release date to all of us at the same time once they have a release date figured out. I seriously doubt they will secretly tell retailers about the release before they tell the players & fan base. I'm pretty stoked about GW2 also. I've had it pre-ordered since October of 2009 on Amazon. Patience is not easy, but I know this game is going to rock, so I'll wait. There should be a new profession revealed before the end of January. Once all eight professions are revealed you'll know we're a lot closer to the release. Until then it's as ethereal as a Vaettir, only not as dangerous. Silmalel File:User Silmalel SigPic3.PNG 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if IGN is a reliable source or not, but this says that the release date is November 2, 2011. A quick google search also shows multiple sources saying the same thing. Just thought I'd let you guys know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.57.163 (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we include the beta release? Due to the fact that the beta is supposed to come out in the Fall of 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoko4321 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not until it is released, betas get pushed back all the time.Bofum (talk)

Just to squash a few rumours here. First of all, there is no official release date, and all release dates set on gaming sites or gaming stores are placeholders or speculations. There will be held closed alpha and beta tests during 2011, but as of yet it is not possible to acquire beta keys except by being invited by ArenaNet themselves. Source: http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#one 84.49.104.185 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (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)

There was a pre-order Beta event held from April 27th to April 29th 2012. The event showcased the game as it appears so far. Quests, pvp, WvW (World vs World), exploration, guild creations and more were all available during this Beta. The game ran well though there appeared to be performance issues as many complained of poor frames per second issues. This was allegedly due to the fact that they were not utilizing the GPU but only the CPU for this Beta test. Apart from this, the overall reception was very positive on all aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.122.41 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (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)

The Elementalist has recently been announced. Several articles are also hinting to Warriors, Necromancers and Rangers. There will be 8 classes. --82.72.140.153 (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I just went to Anet's site and saw they announced Thief and Guardian classes.Bofum (talk)

I just visit the site today and they announced the Engineer class. Which looks cool in my opinion. - Edited 11-05-20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.19.254 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The final class has been announced: The Mesmer.

Full list of classes is now available here: http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/professions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.67.236 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2011 (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)

Are you seriously telling me that you've finished EVERYTHING in Guild Wars, You have all sets of Elite armor, all skills, and that your PvP techniques are unflawed? Guild Wars has a lot to do withought huge updates. Just go out there and play.--70.71.240.170 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm strictly a PVE player. I've completed everything in game including all PVE titles, all sets of armor regardless of elite status, everything. I've even completed two of the PVP titles. The product is over 3 years old, believe it or not there are people who have completed everything in the aspect of the game that they play (pvp or pve, rarely both). 192.155.57.159 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit that there isn't much left to do if you've completed all of the pve portion and you don't like Pvp... so I guess you can just try making another character. (Yeah, I know you've probably beaten everything for every char, but maybe you missed one, like monk.) Anyway, this makes me feel sad for all the people who've finished pve and don't like PvP: they have to play other games untill GW2 comes out. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.240.170 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My mates and I beat the game and the expansions. PvP wasn't for us so we moved on to EvE. But we are highly anticipating GW2! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.187.93 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you guys, but guild wars is a PvP based game. Go play WoW if you are for PvE. It has been said countless times Guild Wars is balanced and based for Pvp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.51.48 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Guild Wars is a PvX title not just solely PvP. Something like that is based on opinion. --GW-Shadowphoenix (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, the mount of detail and hard work put into the PvE aspect proves it. Think about the game, which would be harder to make,PvP or PvE? And yes, the PvP is some of the most strategic in any game, but the thing is, it died for me long ago when everybody started using the same skillsets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.189.73 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Read one of the recent interviews. Strain explains how Guild Wars was intended to play once through pve and unlock stuff and then keep coming back to pvp. They were caught by surprise when players kept asking for more to do in pve. Bottomline being, in all ways pvp is the core of the game, but pve is just something that has been added for those who enjoy it. I enjoy both so ... yay I guess.91.178.98.166 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Guild wars is balanced... 75.61.82.167 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What sort of sad act has got every set of armour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.20.73 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 release

Not sure if it's worth mentioning in the article, but http://www.incgamers.com/Games/255/News/NCSoft-Profits-Down--Delay-Guild-Wars-2/15009 French Connections (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there was no release date announced, or even an estimate, there can't really be a delay. The only dates I've seen around are from fansites or from the media themselves. I'd rather wait for an official announcement rather than add speculative information arriving from the media atm. --Aspectacle (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article cites NCSoft's official Q4 2008 earnings report, which includes a release window, and the claim is further corroborated by this guildwars.com news post. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I agree we are now aware of the window of time in which they hope to release the game. I'm not sure that this information is much more concrete than what we had before this information came to light. It is still a large window and still some time away... --Aspectacle (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

release date

A February 2009 share holders meeting offered by NCSoft produced documentation illustrating that GW2 will be released sometime in 2010 or 2011. The specific presentation is available for public download on NCSoft's site (they own ArenaNet) and has been discussed at great length on official ArenaNet sites and GW fansites. This link (http://www.ncsoft.net/global/ir/quarterly.aspx?BID=&BC=) will lead you to this documentation as well as an MP3 recording of the conference call, of which the last 8 minutes of so are used to discuss GW2. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazon shows a release date of 12/31/09 whilst NewEgg shows it being 8/31/09. (Disk Crasher (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

They must have very old info, not reliable. --Xeeron (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Guild Wars wiki has plenty of information on this with retailers - they explicitly stated that these retailers were using release dates that they guessed at and that no official release date has been set. I'd provide a link for reference but, am too lazy. 24.188.207.20 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon has a history of just making up dates.Bofum (talk)

primordious

its nto a statue but belived to be a statue though was jsut the dormant dragon--99.52.92.51 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole setting section is a mess. In addition to awkward phrasing, it also refers to events in the backstory in present and future tense. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Documenting absence of subscription fee

I've done some fairly substantial rewording of the article. However, I couldn't really decide on how to deal with the subscription free aspect. Looking at the outlines of other games very few, if any, outline the payment model for the game, and I fear by highlighting the lack of subscription fee for GW2 we're simply marketing the game. More-over, the MMO market has changed quite a bit since 2005 when GW was released, there are so many different F2play, single payment for content and micro-transaction based games that I'm not sure being subscription free is very interesting or unusual any more. Any thoughts? --Aspectacle (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that mentioning the payment model, if only briefly, should be a part of any MMO article we write. It's a relevant and high-interest aspect of any online game. Is there a way to fit it into the infobox? A simple informational entry in a list of data won't read like an ad... 168.9.120.8 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, so true. Have you ever searched online trying to find out how much a MMO's subscription fee is? Every single time I spend an hour searching IGN, the game's official site, et cetera, and if I ever find it it's only in the game's Wikipedia discussion page. Why does Wiki not list the game's subscription model and any fees? It's not in any way irrelevant. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing the payment model in the infobox is a great idea. However, I would not list the actual fee: It is bound to be too complicated to fit (different prices for different time periods, different prices in different countries, etc, also changing too often). --Xeeron (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Low Importance on the importance scale ?

This game will knock World of Warcraft out cold, and WoW is stated as "high-importance". I hope that's only because many more people play it, and Guild Wars 2 isn't out yet. Even the original GW series are better than WoW for reasons I can clearly state ( I'm currently making a 10 minute video from a NEUTRAL standpoint as i play both games and both are great), and as soon as they use their experience from GW and implement them into GW2, it will be a MUCH better game than World of Warcraft (at least that's what I hope). But this article clearly needs to have at least for the time being the "Mid importance" rating. ~~MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.133.129 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it's not been released yet and the only worthwhile information is the select information NCSoft's media releases? Once there is more than media-stuff (I'll assume near or at release time) then I'd guess its important would go up. AWoodland (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The importance of a video game depends on its impact on the world, which in case depends mostly on the number of people playing it. You hear and read about WoW in normal newspapers, etc, you don't hear about GW2 at all, outside of gaming magazines. So, for now, the difference is justified. --Xeeron (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I bet you get better support from WoW than you do with GW2! GW2 is to busy dealing with hacked accounts to work on other ticket issues! If you haven't been hacked because you know how to make a password and use it, your not important to GW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.5.6 (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Side Kick

Why has the information about the side kick system not been removed? ANet announced (I think about two weeks ago) that the side kick system was scrapped some time ago. 24.116.50.70 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't just be removed seeing it was a 'major' thing at the start of the process and anyone checking the article who knew about it might get confused. Perhaps instead it should be stated it was removed during design with a provided reference saying about the removal. AWoodland (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I Agree, that was the only reason I came back to check on it. With no heroes the game will be crap and people should know they got rid of the only thing that made GW different from every other mmorpg out there. GW2 is just another WoW game now, looks like they intend on making it item based to some degree now too. Leave the info about sidekicks/heroes, people need to know it's junk so they don't waste their money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.169.232 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The above comments are incorrect. The sidekick system was not removed, the companion system was. Go here to understand the difference. The sidekick system basically makes it so lower level players can team up with higher level players, and vice versa. I'm probably going to edit the page if there's been any confusion. 68.40.56.56 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The new sidekicking system is not like City of Heroes anymore, where you actually have an AI controlled sidekick, so saying it is like City of Heroes is incorrect. The new behavior is to kick the level down or up to the people you want to party with. Here is a reference: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Sidekick --209.181.248.181 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Casual Gaming?

Will GW2 be a "casual gaming" type of game? I have many things to do that are way more important than computer games, and I would just like to be able to play like an hour and leave it and not have to come back to do something. I dont want to play a game like WoW where I desperately need to get back and need to do something for my character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.133.97.196 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "need", but as far as I know they intend to keep the same business model as GW1 which means you should never really feel any urgency in doing anything 202.53.199.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Nvidia drivers info

I was about to download the new 266.58 Nvidia drivers from official Nvidia website and while reading the info on what it add i read that is add Guild Wars 2 support, how can it add GW2 support if the game still isnt out?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.38.187 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Game developers are going to want to make sure their software works before it ships out. NCSoft is likely working with Nvidia to ensure quality.Robert Cafazzo (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in the article

In the Guild Wars 2 wiki page in the Gameplay section under engineer, it says "The race and skill of the player will determine the skills that he or she has access to". This is a mistake. It would be more accurate to say : "A players skills are determined by his race and or his profession". Could someone please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoht1113 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually 1/2 the skills on the players hotbar relate to the WEAPON they are using and NOT their race/profession. If a Ranger changes from Bow to Axe, half the bar changes to new skills.86.17.72.80 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The skills are still determined by class (profession) because the weapon skills change depending on who is holding the weapon. For example, a Necromancer using an Axe and a Warrior using an Axe have different skills. I think the suggested wording, "A players skills are determined by his race and or his profession," is fine, since the skills you have access to are indeed determined by your race and profession. The skills you have currently equipped are determined by your weapon, but what you can use is determined by profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.58.191 (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Race only plays a small part though. I think it should say "A player's skills are determined by weapon and profession." or just by profession. The racial skills are mostly just for flavor. 180.216.41.4 (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Console version

Anyone else hopes it never will be? So far any game (just to name GTAIV) any console port I ever saw would be terrible... I hope they won't downgrade graphics for the console. Especially if they have to egt online :S Nha we'll see --Jorre22225 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a console version of Guild Wars 2 would even function. Dhuum (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The GW2 engine works on consoles, HAVOK. Would be awesome if ArenaNet would make a multisystem MMO. --Silverleaf 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but what I was refering to was not that the game mechanics wouldn't function, but that they wouldn't be practical at all. How are you going to, for example, chat ingame in a console MMORPG? You don't have a keyboard and in an MMO, voice chat wouldn't work either. Apart from that, there is also that I don't think console controllers have 10 hotkeys (for the 10 skills on your bar) and as such you would have to do combos or move a wii cursor or something to activate certain skills. And then how will consoles handle the graphics and the large world, they have really old hardware after all. BUT if they manage to make it work, it would be nice :) Dhuum (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Consoles don't have a mouse and keyboard? You do realize that all consoles have USB ports that work seamlessly with USB keyboards, right? You're also clearly not aware that FFXI was a cross-platform MMO that did very well. PS2 users, PS3 users, PC users, and XBOX360 users *all* played together just fine with controllers, mice and keyboards, etc. Communication was not an issue. Additionally, console users who wished to voice chat did the same thing that computer users did: used Vent or Teamspeak. The *only* legitimate reason to wonder if it would work on consoles is the number of hotkeys that they would have to find a way of putting on the controller. This would be perfectly doable with a combination of buttons and trigger + button combinations, however. You have every right to discuss the viability of a console MMO, but please keep your ideas grounded in facts. 14.53.183.65 (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be awesome to play GW2 on console, but I don't think it will happen this time around. Sure picking up an Xbox controller and farming would be awesome, but there's just too much involved to put this game on console. It would take months to develop specifically for each console, and on top of that they would need a way for Xbox users to connect to PC gamers, which undoubtedly seems pretty impossible at the moment. It would be cool though, really really cool.

You should really read about FFXI. It's perfectly possible for cross platform MMOs to work. FFXI worked with PS2 users, PS3 users, Xbox360 users, and PC users all on the same servers. 14.53.183.65 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2011

Remove this banner: {{Citation style|date=June 2011}}

Reason: I looked in the references section and there are 39 clear references. Does this banner serve any purpose other than being an eyesore at the top of the page? If there are 1 or 2 specific references that are problems, it should be detailed on this talk page, not announced with a vague banner at the top of the article.

81.98.16.240 (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I've also nowiki'ed the banner on this page (and removed it from the article page) so that it doesn't add the talk page to any categories. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

2008 Release

Hi all Wikis,

I check this page assiduously since 2008 for impending upcoming release of the MMORPG game known as such, upon first hearing of development in 2007. Since this time I have fathered three beautiful children and toiled in the harsh fields of Tamil Nadu. Whenceforth the life of my family marches on without relent, why is it this game appears frozen in a crystal ball? 72.75.101.68 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool story bro. A F K When Needed 06:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does magic in the first link to the Magic: The Gathering card game?

It would make much more sense to link it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28gaming%29

Please consider. Thanks. --128.227.189.45 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the skill system in the original game worked similar to that found in magic: the gathering. Dhuum (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

ArenaNet conducted small closed alpha and beta tests in 2011.[40] On the 23rd of January it was announced that Guild Wars 2 will ship this year. In February, select press will be invited to participate in beta testing. In March and April, the size of beta tests will be increased significantly.[41]

Should read "On the 23rd of January 2012". Otherwise the context year of 2011 runs on.

203.26.122.12 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Celestra (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request 27/02/2012

The press beta weekend has passed and the press has released a whole bunch of info since their NDA is partly lifted. I'm not sure what the normal policy is, but should the development section of the article be edited to include this? And some links/references to the press articles be added?

Also, should the gameplay section be edited to include more info about the WvWvW system that they have? Since it is quite different from most other MMOs 202.72.135.193 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention that based on the press videos, death shroud for the necro changes their entire skill bar, not just part of it. 202.72.135.193 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to get into minutiae of the system, such as individual skills. If we did, the page would be 10x longer. For that kind of stuff, the official Guild Wars wiki is the best location for that. Some generic information on WvW and such would be appropriate, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see if I can find a way to describe that in a non fanboy way 202.72.135.193 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 3/13/2012

Can we had pre order status and items to the page? I already added this to the Guild Wars wiki

• Pre-orders for Guild Wars 2 will start on April 10th, 2012. There are three versions of the game that will be up for pre-order: Digital Edition, Digital Deluxe Edition, and Collector's Edition.

Pre-Order Items

Items	Digital Edition	Digital Deluxe Edition	Collectors Edition
Guild Wars 2 Game	√	√	√
Summon Mistfire Wolf Elite Skill	x	√	√
Rytlock Miniature	x	√	√
Golem Banker	x	√	√
Chalice of Glory	x	√	√
Tome of Influence	x	√	√
10-inch figurine of Rytlock	x	x	√
112 page Making of Guild Wars 2 book	x	x	√
Custom Art Frame	x	x	√
Art Portfolio and Five Art Prints	x	x	√
Best of Guild Wars 2 Soundtrack CD	x	x	√

(Legacy2013 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Probably not needed here. Anyone looking for this info should go to the GW Wiki. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

System requirements

Lugiatm added the announced system requirements, but as they where uncited they where removed, can someone add them back with the source https://buy.guildwars2.com/ SirKeplan (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted my revert and added the ref. Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

State the method

This is but a small yet legit request. I have a lot of people coming up to me and telling me that Guild wars 2 is a free-to-play game, yet you actually have to buy the game in order to play the game without a subscription fee... So in reality, Guild Wars 2 is actually a Buy-To-Play game. Please have someone state this somewhere on the page. Thank you. :) 97.103.93.146 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that states this, we would most likely add it. Currently, the first paragraph states that there's no subscription fee, but it doesn't cite a source. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#four There you go. 128.113.146.168 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added the information to the end of the lead. -- Fyrefly (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

digital vs physical copies

I know there are 3 versions of the digital copies, but what about the physical version? I can find info on the collectors edition and on the non-collectors edition. Is there a 3rd version? 2nd question: The physical copy (non-collectors edition) is that the same as digital edition or the digital deluxe edition? Mainly I want to know about the extras that you get with the digital deluxe edition (things like Summon Mistfire Wolf Elite Skill, Rytlock Miniature, Golem Banker, Chalice of Glory, Tome of Influence). do I get those with the non-collectors edition (physical copy) of the game?Varuuth (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't even a release date yet for this game. I doubt we'll find reliable sources for what kind of bonuses come with different versions of the game so that we could add it to the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is only 2 digital versions of the game who ever told you there was 3 is 100% incorrect... The standard edition and the Digital deluxe, Those who pre purchase the standard edition get 3 Day head start access Beta weekend events and the In game item Heroes band. That is the only in game item the standard edition pre purchase gets... The Physical copy is not the same as the digital deluxe lol it is the same as the standard digital edition... The only way to get all those in game items I.E. Mistfire wolf elite skills, Rytlock miniature etc.. IS to either pre purchase the digital deluxe version or pre purchase the physical collectors edition from a retailer... You will not get those items with the non collectors edition (Standard version) of the game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.118.64 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

Release date: "Release date(s) TBA 2012[1]" Release date: "27/07/12" [1] Source: http://www.gameseek.co.uk/productdetail/VideoGames8qxh6b1tkm/

Captaincaptains (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is no reliable source, there have been numerous release dates targeted by vendors, which have all not been correct so far. Only NCsoft can confirm the release date. Sitic (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2012

Please change: | released = TBA 2012 to: | released = 31/07-2012 Vanquiza (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Declined: Same issue as previous request ... retail websites are not reliable sources. An official statement from NCSoft or ArenaNet is needed to confirm a release date. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit the page

• Hello, I was planning to make this article on the Simple English wikipedia by taking the information from this article and post it there with more simple words and sentences. However I can't do this because i can't see the code on the page as it is protected (which i need to add the sources on the simple english wikipedia). Anyone got any ideas? --Gelbrekt (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

can't you just use 'View Source' ? 202.72.135.193 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Official release date

http://www.webpronews.com/guild-wars-2-finally-gets-a-release-date-2012-06

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/6/28/3123033/guild-wars-2-release-date

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/guild-warsr-2-launches-august-28-2012-2012-06-28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.149 (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"On the back foot"

"Although humans begin Guild Wars 2 on the back foot, significant technological advances have taken place in the years since Guild Wars."

This is the caption under a screenshot in the plot section. What in the world does "on the back foot" mean? It sounds like an idiom or colloquialism to me and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. 14.53.183.65 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly common as an expression to mean "at a disadvantage" or more literally "off balance", but you're right, there are better ways to phrase it for wikipedia. 121.45.199.20 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is still saying "on the back foot", and I am having trouble figuring out what the fact that humans start at a disadvantage has to do with the technological advances that have occurred. This entire caption is confusing and needs to be reworked. Xela Yrag (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I just changed "on the back foot" to "at a disadvantage." I feel that the original phrase was far too colloquial and that many people would not understand it. In fact, I used to teach English and I'd never heard that phrase before reading this page. - Seanr451 (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012

I want to add a recently controversial mass ban for exploiting a price error. Wulinhao (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-31-guild-wars-2-bans-for-first-widespread-exploit-game-sales-suspended-status-update http://www.gamezone.com/products/guild-wars-2/news/arenanet-bans-3-000-guild-wars-2-accounts-for-karma-weapons-exploit http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/28/arenanet-offers-clarification-on-guild-wars-2-bans/ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/28/guild-wars-2-banned-gamer_n_1836425.html?utm_hp_ref=uk http://www.guildwars2guru.com/topic/57556-permanently-banned/

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened was that some rare items sold by an npc that were supposed to be very expensive could be bought at a very low price, which resulted in some players buying hundreds of them, which led to arenanet banning them (and later unbanning the players/shortening the ban to a few days) but with a warning. I don't think it's important enough for the article though, people often exploit game mechanics, or at least too often for us to mention it, in my opinion. Dhuum (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

there's nothing controversial about it. The only people complaining are the lying idiots who exploited and the people who mistakenly believe that those people only bought "a couple" when in reality each and every single one of the banned(now with the possibility of ban being lifted) people bought hundreds. 180.216.41.4 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Does anyone think its time to start adding the reception since some reviews are already in? | Metacritic | Forbes | PC Gamer | CVG etc Dusty Hayes (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.182.122 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't the article is locked =/ Dusty Hayes (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Added reviews from GamesRadar GameSpy Computer and Video Games & GameSpot =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty Hayes (talk • contribs) 18:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Cider

It should noticed in the artile that the os x version is a cider port. See: guilwars2.com/en: Announcing Guild Wars 2 for Mac --Thaodan (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

crafting

crafting is in the game. I don't understand why that says that crafting is being added? 180.216.41.4 (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Done - [1] - I have added a small explanation of the game's crafting. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 24 September 2012

The minimum system requirements for windows for this game in an Intel i3 not an i5 http://en.support.guildwars2.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1119/session/L3RpbWUvMTM0ODU0NzY5My9zaWQvVUNpc1I1N2w%3D Anytyme23 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. The wikilink in that table already pointed to i3; not sure why it was piped to display i5 but it has been corrected. Let me know if I have missed any other mentions of the i5 requirement. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Playable Races?

There's no list of the playable races for this game.  :(

-Double J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.231 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is. Second paragraph of the Gameplay section:

^{"Guild Wars 2 will allow a player to create a character from a combination of five races and eight professions, the five races being the humans and charr, introduced in Prophecies, the asura and norn, introduced in Eye of the North, and the sylvari, a race exclusive to Guild Wars 2."}

Seriously, did you even look? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

There is a spelling error in the article's main body (in "Reception")

"Other critic's such as..." should read as "Other critics such as..."

Game Rankings

... has an average ranking of 90.40% now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.106.171 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Add request: gamespot.com declared it has top game of 2012.

gamespot.com declared it has top game of 2012 source:http://asia.gamespot.com/shows/best-of-2012-videos/?event=pc_winner20121217. Ram nareshji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking to get permission to edit and keep the Post Launch Development section up to date.

I want to update the article on current events such as Bazaar of the Four Winds update and Cutthroat Politics. Also, while NCSoft did say that an expansion was in the works, Arena Net (Mike Z and Colin Johanson) have both stated that a expansion is not in the works, and while not off the table, Living Story would likely be the main vehicle of content.

I've updated post-launch since I was the one who created the section. I am concerned however that due to their update frequency, that section will quickly balloon in size. I'm wonder if maybe it's best to to shorten this section to a summary and create a new page for Guild Wars 2 updates? I don't know if there's any precedent for that though or if GW2 would be considered notable for that. Or if it's even something Wikipedia does. I just don't want the Post-launch development section to be 90% of the article.IndigoAK200 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. -- TOW  talk  19:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification in regards to Expansions and the update frequency for the game.

"Guild Wars 2 receives content updates every three weeks, with updates every two weeks being planned in the future.[40]"

This is now incorrect with the now two week update cadence as of May 2013.

Source:

Expansion

I"n a May 2013 earnings call, Guild Wars 2 publisher NCsoft revealed that an expansion for Guild Wars 2 was in development. A release date date for the upcoming expansion was not revealed, nor were any details regarding its story or content.[55]"

This is also incorrect and has been clarified by Lead Designer Mike Z and Game Director Colin Johanson. Expansions aren't even really being planned right now and may not even happen at all if the Living Story pans out how they want it to.

Source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omlech (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the expansion bit and updated the update cadence info, but on a personal note I find it highly unlikely there will never be any expansions. I don't think that Anet will be able to maintain interest in the game if they continue with their current rate of introducing news zones and story content. I think Mike and Colin were simply trying to keep the player base focused on living story content after an NCsoft exec unknowingly spilled the beans on plans they didn't want public.IndigoAK200 (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, IndigoAK200, for removing that section from the article, this greatly improved the reader's impressions of the developers' plans. But if you don't object, I would allow myself to reproduce the deleted text here:

Expansion

In a May 2013 earnings call, Guild Wars 2 publisher NCsoft revealed that an expansion for Guild Wars 2 was in development. A release date date for the upcoming expansion was not revealed, nor were any details regarding its story or content. Source: Guild Wars 2 expansion pack is being 'prepared,' says NCsoft --46.138.255.66 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Elder-Dragons

There seems to be a 6th elder-dragon, referred by Johanson as "Swamp-Dragon"
Source Bulletfight2 (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Lack of critical perspective

The article contains essentially one-sided marketing information about the various significant updates to the game after first release, yet it discusses "reception" only to that first release. This ignores intense criticism and debate that has followed most of those updates, with the company itself acknowledging the validity of some complaints. (See, as a summary example: https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/Thoughtful-criticism-of-the-game) The regular content updates are a crucial aspect of the game that make it unusual in the genre, so it is a valid topic for the article to discuss in detail; but it is lack of critical context makes it profoundly misleading about the current state of the game.Jtcarpet (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed here. It should be added. 80.112.180.116 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

More updates?

This article is missing updates past the Bazaar of the Four Winds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirpinguman (talk • contribs) 03:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated and added everything needed. Maridiem (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

San Diego comic con photo

Even though Guild Wars 2 is being promoted in the background, the main focus of this photo seems to be the hired cosplayer who was promoting City of Heroes/Villains last expansion pack Going Rogue and a character named Desdemona.

Surely there must be a better picture from that promotional time period that doesn't give the impression that the CoH cosplayer as the main focus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.193.232 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2014

Please change "By August 2013 the sales have shifted 35 million copies," to "By August 2013 the sales have shifted 3.5 million copies," because the number of units sold is listed incorrectly. It should be 3.5 million units, not 35 millions. Zaidedit (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Avono (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Small date error in section 3.2
"Heart of Thorns"

It currently says the announcement date was "January 24, 2014"
Should be 2015.

Source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/announcing-the-first-guildwars2-expansion/ 24.246.22.70 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Elder Dragons =/= Lovecraftian

Any comparison between the Elder Dragons and Lovecraft's monsters are extremely superficial at best. Take a look at one Lovecraftian entity and notice that they don't resemble anything conventional. The Elder Dragons are conventional dragons(no matter how big or "different" they look)which are bent on very direct approaches to the world compared with Lovecraftian creatures who just revel in chaos and don't care one bit about Earth or humanity. I can't edit the page but the Lovecraftian comparison should be taken away for it is incorrect. Duly Grateful Sands (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Lovecraftian fits or not; it seems to me they check some of the boxes, but it's not like it's something that's stated in any of the material from or about the game (nor would we expect it to be). Does anyone have a suggestion for an alternate adjective? I feel like "species" alone doesn't quite cut it. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In how they operate they are similar, looks != function. Generally the dragons wake up to consume magic then slumber again, doesn't matter what's in the way. People are 'made of magic' so they get consumed/corrupted. Example, when http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Kralkatorrik woke up it corrupted things nearby by its breath and vision, sounds Lovecraftian to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.248.164 (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

minor spelling

really minor, but I am pedantic, this bit here:

"The season began with the crashing of the Zephyrite Sanctum, a group of airships populated by followers of the now-dead dragon, Glint, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.58.3 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent Player protest on Pre-purchase

Recently, there was a mass player protest regarding the price but also the content of the upcoming expansion. Should it be documented here? There's plenty of documentation and sources to be found on the subject. 80.112.180.116 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this is notable. It's basically just standard people complaining on forums. 125.7.58.3 (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Guild Wars 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120314102836/http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/ to http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#four
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511101450/http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/ to http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/combat/healing-death/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604124214/http://www.arena.net/blog/stephane-lo-presti-reports-from-paris-games-week to http://www.arena.net/blog/stephane-lo-presti-reports-from-paris-games-week
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120207221054/http://www.arena.net/blog/dragon to http://www.arena.net/blog/dragon
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120701003444/http://www.arena.net:80/blog/announcing-the-guild-wars-2-launch-date to http://www.arena.net/blog/announcing-the-guild-wars-2-launch-date
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100824002241/http://www.arena.net:80/blog/demo-tales-from-gamescom to http://www.arena.net/blog/demo-tales-from-gamescom
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711132844/http://www.guildwars2.com/en/faq/ to http://www.guildwars2.com/en/faq/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110502195611/http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/ to http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#two

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)