Talk:Campaign

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_Nightfall, the 3rd chapter is called "Nightfall". &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yes4me (talk &bull; contribs) 01:24, 8 June 2006 (CDT).
 * That is pure speculation. See: Guild Wars Nightfall and Talk: Campaign Three --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 01:37, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Temporarally adding Campaigns?
What happens if you apply a trial key for a campaign you don't have to your account, buy a bunch of skills, capture a bunch of elites, create two new characters, etc... and then have the key run out of time? Can you still play your new characters; can you still use your new skills? –Korolen 17:55, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Any skills you unlocked that were campaign specific would just be inaccessable. The characters would remain, but would be unplayable without a valid key.--Sykoone 18:00, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Would the skills still be unlocked, i.e. usable on a Hero? Wait, you can just unlock skills outside of your campaign like that with faction, right? –216.9.22.62 17:21, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Campaign Zero
Why is "Core" listed as a campaign? It's not a campaign, it's just shared content. Also, why the reference to the patch? UW and FoW existed before that patch. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:32, 22 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Basically most of the "core" content was rolled out with the original release of Prophecies (back then, was known simply as "Guild Wars"), then during a major update (aka, patch) on January 19, 2006 much of the PvP content, guild halls were moved over to the newly added "Battle Isles" (read the Game Update article linked for the details), also the core professions (W, Ra, Me, Mo, N and E) were "moved over" to belonging to the "core" etc. So it's kind of an awkward situation, technincally never sold as "Campaign Zero", indeed is not a "buyable" product, but ArenaNet changed their "core design" to separate the basic / core parts away from being directly tied to "Guild Wars" (was around this time, that the name "Prophecies" started floating about too), had to place all the associated wiki articles under some sort of "container".  Was all done in preparation for Factions and future chapters (which also around this time, started to be referred to as "campaigns").  So it's a way of dealing with a significant change to the game, and I guess makes the most logically sense for alot of people for denoting this "shared by all" content. --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:37, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I understand all that, I was here at the time. However, the article lists "Core" as a campaign.  It is not a campaign, and should not be listed as such.  Doing so is misleading.  It implies to new users who may be unfamiliar with the series that there exists another campaign called "Campaign Zero".  I have no problem with a seperate section mentioning that there exists core locations common to all campaigns - but as it's displayed now in the article, it's misleading.
 * I also disagree with the mention of the patch - at the very least it needs to be reworded. As it is now, it implies that the patch introduced core content.  The patch moved the location/entrance for some content, but didn't introduce it. (okay, it created some content - but for the most part it was just a relocation). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:14, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Barek, no offense was intended, I am sorry that you feel the use of the term "patch" is misleading, to me when ArenaNet release an update, be it minor or major, that's a patch (maybe become an antiquated term these days?). But look, whatever, I thought the original way this article showed where there was no mention of the Jan 19th (06) major update made it seem like the "Battle Isles", and other core content was always a part of the game, and strove only to add additional information, not misinformation. End of the day, the way the article has been edited now is fine, reference to "Campaign Zero" is gone (which is good), so no worries. --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:26, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wolfie - sorry if I came accross as offended - I typed it quick before running out the door, so it was just raw thought hitting the page, rather than taking a moment to clarify my meaning as I normally do. I assure you, I didn't take offense to your comments; and appologise if it came accross that way, or if you took any from my reply.
 * As for the use of the word "patch" - it wasn't that word that I found misleading so much as that it implied that most core content was newly introduced with that patch. I tried clearing that up in the note - but to be honest, I'm not happy with my wording yet.  I'm hoping that someone (you?  someone else? anyone?) can improve it further.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 25 March 2007 (CDT)