Talk:Guild Wars Eye of the North

Campaign 4: "Eye of the North"?
Read this. I'm not quite sure: Is it C4? -- 04:18, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I searched, but found no official press release on any of the NCsoft websites yet. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:20, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't know why, but I find this whole "Eye of the North" stuff inherently fishy sounding, especially that the article is trying to give actual specs on things that will be added, even though I haven't heard anything at all from ANet about it. Perhaps it doesn't help my confidence that I know there's a tabloid magazine called "The Inquirer," but I would personally be in favor of keeping that stuff off of the article page for now, considering there ISN'T official confirmation from ANet yet, despite what that link says, and as it is right now, it stands at best as getting hopes up, and at worst as rumor-mongering (in my opinion).  Is anyone SURE that this "Inquirer" is even a real news site and not satire or tabloid or something?  It claims that there's an announced release date, even though this is clearly NOT the case.  Overall, I would prefer that the information on the article page about it be removed, unless I'm missing some huge piece of official ANet info here, considering...read the tag (ONLY info to be confirmed officially by ANet should be on the article, speculation should stick to the talk pages). Shas&#39;o Kauyon 04:28, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I agree. The whole thing looks like a bunch of BS made up by someone to try and get people excited. None of it sounds like what Guild Wars is really in my opinion, but hey what the hell do I know--Cursed Condemner 10:17, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * From what's been mentioned in that article, it's not going to be a stand-alone, like Factions and Nightfall are, and it's geared towards players who have already beaten a game or two... I love how this sounds, obviously (tons of extras especially nice), but this also means it's probably not going to be a new Campaign, per say. More like the first true "expansion" pack. Providing the info is true (which is still up in the air), it'll be a big break away from ANet's norm on these things... Guess we'll just have to wait and see, then? --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 04:31, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I would be sceptical of anything The Inquirer writes. While they have a tendancy to get some things right earlier then everybody else, they also have a tendancy to be publish things which arn't true because of how quick they were published. Doesn't mean they're wrong, I'm just saying take it with a large pinch of salt. 80.3.128.9 04:46, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Finally we can find out how Gwen died after repeated Rape. Well maybe she died from it :) O well Solus   04:47, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * I don't think the Inquirer made up those things, I guess the information is correct, or at least very close to correct, because it all makes sense, a lot of sense. If anything, they leaked the information early, before the press release. But still, so far the information is inofficial, and rumors should be removed from the C4 article. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:59, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Considering how lousy that Inquirer article is, I wouldn't trust any of it. It's more vague and incoherent than "unofficial" or "leaked" info would be I think. It could be nothing more than a bunch of third-hand rumors stuck together. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 05:09, 5 March 2007 (CST)

I have removed the link and details. Unless someone can come up with anything linked to an official source, it should stay off this page for now. &mdash; Skuld 05:18, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Eye of the North

 * 18 new multi-level dungeons
 * 40 new armour sets
 * 10 new Heroes
 * 150 new skills (50 belong only to PVE)

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigm@ (contribs).


 * "Playable races include Humans, Charr, Norns, Asurians and Sylvarians" <-- this editor forsees many more Skulds, Verdandis and Urds :| &mdash; Skuld 05:05, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Might it be noted that although 'North' may mean ice and cold to Americans, this continent may not be a northern-hemispherial continent. It could be southern. Thus, north means hot. Or, it could work in completely different ways. North just doesn't necessarily mean ice. And, if you say 'but the picture in the Inquirer had ice!' well... it's the inquirer. Aren't we debating the whole reliability of this argument here? Leina 08:50, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, in fantasy genre conventions (which are usually based on the perceptions of a northern-hemispherial continent), North is cold. Ascalon climate is implied to be temperate, whereas the hot climate of Kourna, which is south of Ascalon, is explicitly stated in the game. So, it gets colder as one goes north, assuming we're going north of Tyria, rather than Cantha. We've already been north of Elona. --Valentein 09:13, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * It sounds plausible except for the bit about 150 new skills, which seems pitifully low for total skills, and shockingly high for skills per profession. -- Gordon Ecker 05:29, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * And 50 PvE only skills? Really... This would be 10 normal skills and 5 PvE only skills per profession. Though it might actually be the case if it isn't a real campaign, just an add-on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Regarding the low number of skills, consider 1) according Inquirer this is not a full stand-alone campaign, only an expansion and 2) some or all of the PvE-skill skills may be cross-profession, like the ones in Nightfall. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:57, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * 50 PvE-only skills doesn't sound that odd when you consider they made 8 (technically 9) for the Junundu, and they're talking about playing other races. -- Peej 14:32, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * 150 new skills is an interesting number - Assassins and Ritualists are about 25 skills away from having as many as the core professions, while Dervishes and Paragons are 50 away - (50 * 2) + (25 * 2) = 150. Course, it goes on to say that 50 will be PvE only, b ut that number would make sense if this were only an expansion rather than a chapter, and it was the last thing released for GW1 (so it brings all the professions together in terms of skill variety). It sounds a little like this is the basics of a new chapter that got drastically cut down when the decision to go ahead with GW2 was made. Course, it's all far too early to tell, just speculating. --NieA7 09:29, 7 March 2007 (CST)

One thing strike me as odd: ANet never used the term "dungeon" for anything in GW. Also, note that The Inquirer use the BE spelling "armour", while NCsoft/ANet always use AE spelling. Which confirms to me that The Inquirer didn't copy-paste the text of an official announcement. Probably they don't hold any announcement in hands yet, despite the fact that their article starts with "NCsoft has announced ...". What they wrote is either some kind of transcript of spoken word (incl. interpretation), hear-say or plain rumors. -- 06:11, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * It's a British online tech magazine, so uses British spellings. Reading anything else into that would be a mistake. RossMM 07:53, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

The "Dungeon" note is actually one of the things that set me off big time (proverbial sirens going off), it sounded almost like they were talking about WoW instead of Guild Wars! They even said "new" like there were multi-level dungeons in Guild Wars already (I wouldn't call an elite mission a "dungeon.") Although I always HAVE wanted to play as Charr (since they weren't evil, just misled by the Titans). I'm still holding out hope for them though, because IF C4 is arctic, it might still be possible, as well as my other hope, dwarves. There was a thing going on in GWGuru for a while claiming that it might occur in the "unseen lands" of the Mursaat, but I personally think that not only would be lame, but doesn't make sense. Although I think they'll probably just stick to humans for new playable classes, who knows (new races would be kind of cool in my opinion). My belief is, as long as ANet manages to keep up to the same standard of quality they've had in the past, I'll probably buy C4 anyways, and the whole "Eye of the North" thing is literally just rumors (nigh on fiction), especially since I truly doubt they'd make a game that isn't standalone. Since they've done it with all the others and they double as expansions AS WELL, I see no reason they'd break from tradition. Mainly, because the current format makes the most profit for ANet, and that's what a business is all about in this case. Shas&#39;o Kauyon 06:23, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Just a point of clarification, didn't the Charr you find in Torment say his land is all firey and stuff? By the way, the article sounds like total fiction. Anet hasn't said anything so how can it be an "announcement"? 132.203.83.38 09:26, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * He said he missed the fires of his homeland. It probably refers to the sacred Charr fires or heavy volcanic activity, neither of which is precluded by a cold climate. It seems suspicious that the list of "confirmed" races has three races we've never heard of, but is missing Dwarves and Tengu. -- Gordon Ecker 20:12, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Well I can see the Asurians as a probability, I mean we have azure bows dropping in Elona maybe the Asurians have something to do with it (I know it's a stretch and there's still 2 unaccounted for). About the dungeons, let's change the word and say mission (I won't talk about the elites as they haven't interested me,in terms that i can't just make my own team to go there, and I haven't gotten around to the last 3 missions of NF), there is 1 mission thats a multi-leveled mission and the other is a stretch to it first would be Dragon's Lar and the stretch would be Raisu Palace other than that the rest aren't really multi-leveled, it is kinda weird they make all 18 this way now.  Also they made comparisons to WoW directly the first I didn't even recognize the other area I did anyways we know a C4 has set it's shadows upon us already so lets wait and see  - Firestorm (talk • contribs)


 * Azure is likely referring to the colour rather than a race that made them (azure is a shade of blue). Yeah, the multi-level thing doesn't sound right, though the possibility of a large number of PvE only skills intrigues me, and whether or not it's pulled off correctly. Maybe we'll finally get to bring Claim Resource to the Rotscale gate to see what's inside. Or, perhaps they're referring to single mission-specific skills (like Disarm Trap or Vial of Purified Water) rather than a large selection of PvE only skills to be equipped and changed at will. --Valentein 10:56, 7 March 2007 (CST)


 * I know what azure stands for(comes from a Latin root; azura (Medieval Latin) change to azur (Old French) then to azul (current Spanish, my native tongue)), like I said it's a stretch but knowing all the little word/name games that are all over GW it wouldn't surprise me. - Firestorm (talk • contribs)


 * ASURIANS REVEALED??? Could this be the tiny shred of credibility we were waiting for?  Could the article be real and will we get to play as tiny big eared things (which I've seen before and can't pin point where) - Firestorm (talk • contribs)

The 100 (150) new skills doesn't sound unrealistic, out of the current skillbase, like, 40% if them get used. If they're only using a few additions as a carrot-on-a-stick and using the time to balance skills from previous campaigns, its all good to me! &mdash; Skuld 09:48, 5 March 2007 (CST)

<3 Charr. still wondering what proffesions there will be new...and the new skills...--InfestedHydralisk 11:20, 5 March 2007 (CST)

It's the only article around so far. Keep it around but it seems at least a tad fake :/--Nog64Talk 11:25, 5 March 2007 (CST)

GW:EN. With that abbreviation, the name is either a great inside-GW-joke and completely real, or an early April Fool's. (Credit to my guildie Zoolander for pointing it out.) — HarshLanguage 12:38, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * Yea maybe they finally let us know what happens to her. :p Hey maybe she is a prodigy and an all powerful half human half something else.  :p  Sorry couldn't help comment to this, since hes right about it being a joke either way. - Firestorm (talk • contribs)


 * No way. Each chapter has to have someone bent on taking over the world or bringing everything to destruction.  I'm saying that she'd be turned evil and the new destructress of doom.  That's all sarcasm btw. :) --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:54, 7 March 2007 (CST)


 * LOL - Oddly enough, I think that a post I made over six month ago at Talk:Bloodstone is almost 100% relevant to this discussion ...
 * Aurgh. Endless debate on unprovable theories, speculation, and wild guesses. As long as we're throwing out theories, I say the remaining bloodstones and the keystone are either in parts of the map we haven't yet seen, or were dropped to the bottom of the ocean, or landed on as-yet unseen lands further to the north or the east, or were magically transported away by Gwen onto a small island where she is now secretly trying to tap into their power so that she can take over the world and rule as the supreme queen of all the land!
 * Heh, I couldn't resist fitting that in here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:03, 7 March 2007 (CST)


 * YEAH! BOW BEFORE GWEN OR DIE!!! rofl  - Firestorm (talk • contribs) thx to Bartek I learned new wikicode, YAY!


 * Hang on, Gwen is the Mad Pumpkin King?! ;) -- Peej 14:00, 7 March 2007 (CST)

GW Guru - ChaoticCoyote '' The Inquirer is *NOT* the National Enquirer.

The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid, with stories about Elvis and aliens.

The Inquirer is an established technology news site, with a somewhat anti-Microsoft, anti-Dell viewpoint.

The article was published by the latter, which has *no* relation to the former.

That said, I can't vouch for whether or not the Inquirer is correct about what's going on with Guild Wars. Like any new site, it could well have been spoofed. Or maybe they found a drunk NCSoft employee in the bar; lots of leaks happen that way.'' --68.209.227.3 00:32, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * The Inquirer is an established technology news site, but it's also a self-described tabloid, and having a 'flame author' link on every article doesn't exactly scream "reliable news source". -- Gordon Ecker 01:04, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Tabloid does not mean fake. It's just a size of print, sadly most have given the rest a bad name. - Firestorm (talk • contribs)


 * From the link you provided: A tabloid is a newspaper industry term which refers to a smaller newspaper format per spread; to a weekly or semi-weekly alternative newspaper that focuses on local-interest stories and entertainment ... or to a newspaper that tends to emphasise sensational crime stories, gossip columns repeating scandalous innuendos about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and other so-called "junk food news"
 * Given the comments from ArenaNet on the accuracy of the story, I believe the latter definition clearly applies here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:19, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Reliability
A quick scan of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that there's nothing new registered. Checking site registries, "GuildWars2.com" was purchased in 2004 and is currently a redirect to "guildwarsonline.com", while "www.GuildWarsEyeoftheNorth.com" still appears available. Also, take into account that the story claims in bold caps "NCSOFT HAS ANNOUNCED", yet no one has yet found the official press release on this. The story may be true, or it may not; but until I see the official press release - at this point, I consider it a rumor disguised as a news story. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:53, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Quick note on the USPTO stuff. Only trademarks published for opposition are publicly available from the USPTO, and even then, any newly added trademark, published or not, will not immediately be available on the public USPTO site. ANet/NCSoft have a record of publishing their chapter-related marks for opposition as close to release as possible, usually for the first public beta events. Even if this news was somehow true, the mark would in all likelyhood not pop up on USPTO searches yet. mikkel 15:09, 5 March 2007 (CST)

It's a rumor (hence not to be on the page), it's that simple, I don't know why we keep discussing it :x Shas&#39;o Kauyon 12:56, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Because I was sleeping when this first came up, and I was feeling left out of the fun! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:12, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * And what are rumors good for, other then spawning discussion? In case this turns out to be completely bogus, we should make sure to do our part, and make sure this rumor gets it's job done! --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 13:51, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * The website itself is a Technology Tabloid site. Since when do we trust tabloids? Trogam 13:52, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * In regards to www.guildwarseyeofthenorth.com, it does not exist. Either it was, and now it's being removed... or something much more sinister? Elvis, perhaps. 203.100.25.184 08:44, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Breaking
NCSoft apparently forgot to cover their tracks on eyeofthenorth.org


 * Domain: DID140097091-LROR
 * Domain Name:EYEOFTHENORTH.ORG
 * Created On:20-Feb-2007 19:42:00 UTC
 * Last Updated On:20-Feb-2007 19:42:06 UTC
 * Expiration Date:20-Feb-2008 19:42:00 UTC
 * Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
 * Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
 * Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
 * Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
 * Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
 * Registrant ID:DOT-SMOKBCN2CZAA
 * Registrant Name:Christopher Graf
 * Registrant Organization:NCsoft, Inc. - Austin
 * Registrant Street1:6801 N Capital of TX Hwy.
 * Registrant Street2:Bldg. 1, Ste. 102
 * Registrant Street3:
 * Registrant City:Austin
 * Registrant State/Province:TX
 * Registrant Postal Code:78731
 * Registrant Country:US
 * Registrant Phone:+1.5124984000
 * Registrant Phone Ext.:
 * Registrant FAX:
 * Registrant FAX Ext.:
 * Registrant Email:web@ncaustin.com
 * Admin ID:DOT-4K6JC74XTMIE
 * Admin Name:Christopher Graf
 * Admin Organization:NCsoft, Inc. - Austin
 * Admin Street1:6801 N Capital of TX Hwy.
 * Admin Street2:Bldg. 1, Ste. 102
 * Admin Street3:
 * Admin City:Austin
 * Admin State/Province:TX
 * Admin Postal Code:78731
 * Admin Country:US
 * Admin Phone:+1.5124984000
 * Admin Phone Ext.:
 * Admin FAX:
 * Admin FAX Ext.:
 * Admin Email:web@ncaustin.com
 * Tech ID:DOT-TYQCO37GHV1K
 * Tech Name:Christopher Graf
 * Tech Organization:NCsoft, Inc. - Austin
 * Tech Street1:6801 N Capital of TX Hwy.
 * Tech Street2:Bldg. 1, Ste. 102
 * Tech Street3:
 * Tech City:Austin
 * Tech State/Province:TX
 * Tech Postal Code:78731
 * Tech Country:US
 * Tech Phone:+1.5124984000
 * Tech Phone Ext.:
 * Tech FAX:
 * Tech FAX Ext.:
 * Tech Email:web@ncaustin.com
 * Name Server:NS1.NAMERESOLVE.COM
 * Name Server:NS2.NAMERESOLVE.COM -- 16:52, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * When I searched for it earlier today, I had tried "Guildwarseyeofthenorth.com" ... looks like I should've tried it without the "guild Wars" prefix. There's still a chance that it's for some other NCsoft franchise, and not actually a Guild Wars project ... but this does lend support to the article.  Still, as the article states "NCSoft has announced", I would like to see an actual announcement from them or ArenaNet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * I'm going to add this on the Campaign Four page, since the utopia address is also up there. --User:Albinobird[[Image:Albinobirdsigicon.JPG|Albinobird]] 20:56, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * If guild wars registers a domain for use for one of its chapters, it puts the prefix 'guildwars' in front. Ie. www.guildwarsfactions.com, www.guildwarsnightfall.com. Also, isnt it odd that while the other three chapters are one-name only, Eye of the North is a whopping phrase? Just, a little out of pattern, if you ask me. Leina 08:47, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Comment on story from Gaile Gray
Per Gaile Gray, "some of what you've read is right, some of it is wrong, and quite a bit of it is misleading". See her comment on it here or here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Here's what ANet gave me for my email:

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to write us. Here is a forum post that our Community Relations Manager posted in some of the fan forums a few minutes ago. It provides all the information that we're able to provide at this time.

"Just a quick word to let you know that we haven't made any official announcements about Guild Wars in, oh, a couple of months. Sure, there's a little *ahem* info circulating this week. ;) But you guys know the drill: Until we say it, it's not official. I can tell you that some of what you've read is right, some of it is wrong, and quite a bit of it is misleading. Unfortunately, we can't offer a fact check quite yet."

"The good news is that the top game publications in Europe and the U.S. are preparing feature articles with major Guild Wars news -- I wasn't joking when I said a few days ago that I think it'll knock your socks off. In the U.S., PC Gamer will begin delivery of the May issue to subscribers on March 15, and it will be on newsstands on April 3. European magazines, including Joystick in France, PC Zone in the U.K., PC GamePlay in Benelux, Games Machine in Italy, and PC Gamer in Germany, will reach subscribers and newsstands before the end of March."

"Knowing you guys, no matter where you're located, you'll be sharing the info from your regional magazines, and that's great. I want to make sure that I let you know, this isn't some small feature -- I would boldly say that any Guild Wars player would want to buy one of these magazines, subscriber or not! In part this is because they'll offer great articles with a lot of cool info. In part it's because the magazines will give you the chance to adopt your very own exclusive new miniature. Check our website for more info tomorrow!"

Regards,

The Guild Wars Team

Looks like we'll have to wait. --Nog64Talk 20:09, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Damn, same comment >.<--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 20:12, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Lol - well, at least you posted the text for those whose firewalls at work might've prevented them from viewing the forum posts I had linked to that said the same thing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 5 March 2007 (CST)
 * Should realized "Community relations manager" meant "Gaile" :P.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 20:15, 5 March 2007 (CST)


 * As long as it's really set in the North (I like arctic terrains), and I get some cool new skills to use in PvP for existing classes, and good new professions, it'll be fine no matter what :p. I just hope we get news up on the Wiki the moment it can be confirmed on the 15th.  Gaille is at least admitting that SOME of the rumors have truth to them, I just wonder which ones :(. Shas&#39;o Kauyon 02:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)

But no one said anything about new professions. There was new "races" but that is for GW2, not the possible expansion. What type of professions can they add to GW now ? For me, everything "GW like" has already been done. But, maybe we'll get a good surprise. What sadden me is GW2. It's too soon. NWN didn't last long after infos about Nwn2 was "leaked". (Yay, some are still playing with Nwn, but..) It's just that Nwn was my first PC game. GW is my second. And i wanna play it forever. Lol. Too soon. We dont even have a french wiki yet. Lol. --TulipVorlax 03:38, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Just a link for french talking people (and show another source) : http://www.clubic.com/actualite-70632-gdc-guild-wars-3e-addon.html
 * --Tůζip Võrζąx 03:45, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * If the part about the campaign being exclusively for level 20 characters is true then it's likely that there would be no option to create C4-native characters, and, therefore, no c4-exclusive professions. -- Gordon Ecker 03:52, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I truly doubt that they would do that, regardless of what this already questionable source says, because that would be openly rewarding elitism, which ANet has long worked against. Not only that, from a business standpoint, that's freaking ridicilous. It would cut into the number of players who bought the game, and whether people like to admit sometimes or not, the company's goal is to make a profit, and being nice to us just helps them do that. So I personally think the "Only for level 20s with existing campaigns" sounds rather absurd, both from an ArenaNet balance point of view, and a profits point of view. Shas&#39;o Kauyon 05:23, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * How would releaing an expansion geared towards level 20 players be rewarding elitism? About a third of Prophecies and 3/4 of Factions and Nightfall are intended for level 20 characters. I strongly suspect that the majority of Guild Wars players own more than one campaign, and that most of the current PvE players who are interested in a new campaign either already have at least one level 20 character who has completed a campaign. -- Gordon Ecker 05:46, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Every time ANet introduces a new stand-alone campaign, there will be new players buying it, who never ever played GW before. Some of them will like the game, and buy the previous campaigns too - which means additional profit. So, even if 90% of the campaign is for level 20 and above, there should be a feature to attract new players. Unless it is really the last campaign, and they do not want to attract new players to the game. -- Deadly Lollipop 05:58, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I own all 3 campaigns and have 6 level 20's in PvE, with the last two slots being used for PvP (rerolling constantly as well), but that doesn't mean that I support the content requiring level 20...Shas&#39;o Kauyon 06:35, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Elitism! Getting to level 20 is a minor inconvenience :| &mdash; Skuld 06:58, 6 March 2007 (CST)

The part about being for level 20s (or, at least, Ascended or equivalent) from another campaign doesn't sound too far-fetched. Level 20 is nothing big, it's easy to accomplish. Ascended too. And a campaign with no "native" characters would eliminate the need for creating yet another tutorial zone, yet another ascending method, etc. And re: expansion, I can see how, from a business perspective, making an expansion rather than standalone makes sense - new players would just need to buy both! BUT there are problems with that, beyond being at odds with GW's history. If you make new players buy an old campaign to use the expansion, you also make them delay playing the expansion until they hit level 20/ascend/finish that old campaign (or whatever the criteria are). That's not a good idea. — HarshLanguage 08:32, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * User:Shas'o Kauyon deleted my comment above, I'm just replacing it. Be careful with your edits and handling edit conflicts, please. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 11:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I'm not disagreeing with that exactly, I level to 20 in 2 to 3 days per player, but something to me just seems fundamentally wrong with requiring your characters to already have in-game virtual acheivements to play something you paid cold cash for. It's a dumb move business-wise, PR wise, and I still will insist I don't think it goes with the Guild Wars spirit, regardless of how easy it is to reach 20. Shas&#39;o Kauyon 08:38, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * And I assume you didnt see what the source had to tell about the type of game it would be. I agree with you about a new game should be playable from scratch, but the source isn't talking about a stand alone game this time. its an expantionpack, it requires a previous chapter. So far every game that brought expantion packs might have offered to start over with a new race, but usualy was driven on the fact that you took your existing characters trough the expantion (merely raising level caps and adding new areas) thus if the rumours are right, then its perfectly possible to have an expantion pack which requires an already lvl 20 character and this wouldnt hurt the business of arenanet, since many others have produced expantion packs for their games succesfully. Saelfaer 10:02, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * If you ask me, the whole thing just looks like it was written by someone who plays a different MMO. For example, calling areas "Dungeons". The whole mention of "Expansion pack" may have been yet another mistake, by an author who doesn't quite know what he's talking about. If I remember correctly, Factions was advertised as having new stuff for level-20 players; that of course didn't mean the whole game was geared towards older players. I don't really think ANet is planning to break their current system of releasing each "expansion" as a stand-alone game. I tend to err more towards believing that the article in question wasn't written with a lot of facts behind it, is all. Point is, no matter what comes out now, based on Inquirer's guesswork, they can still say they had the story first, even if it's not exactly as they said it would be. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 12:34, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Also keep in mind Gaile Gray's comment (Community Relations Manager) on that article: "some of what you've read is right, some of it is wrong, and quite a bit of it is misleading". I really wouldn't read too much into the article at this point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:48, 6 March 2007 (CST)

"currently working on a fourth campaign that will once again expand the explorable world of Guild Wars and provide ever-deepening insight into the history of that world and the stories of its people" Reading this, i now think it will be a stand alone like previous one and with it's "own" story but it seems to me it will be base on stories of previous campaigns. "once again" say they won't break with the way they have done things in the past. Let's hope so. --Tůζip Võrζąx 23:25, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * Yes Indeedy. Hope they weren;t too serious on the history part [[image:jups.jpg|16px]]

Guild Wars 2?
campaign four sounds abit anoying to me. I was looking foward to 2 new proffesions mostly. It sounds too PvE, personally PvE only skills sound lame and I am not much bothered about new campaign storyline. (if you had a sword you'd wanna cut real people right not sheep right?) Anyway sounds like they are going a bit WoW on us in GW2 which sounds good too me. I think playing only human race is a bit of a drawback on guildwars. still there isn;t going to any elves and I can't see the races they have chosen becoming popular. If they do it will prolly be simply because they are not human.
 * Honestly, it sounds like you should be playing WoW, not GW :S -- 14:02, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I hate Elves.. --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA.

]] 14:06, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Honestly, based on Gaile Gray's comment about that tech tabloid story, I question all content and timelines they've published. I expect the next release to be "Eye of the North" due to this story combined with the fact that NCsoft has registered the domain eyeofthenorth.org.  But beyond that, I'll wait for an official statement on number of skills, timelines, GW2, the playable races, etc.  Not enough factually known at this point to even know which parts of that story are accurate yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:21, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I just hope the GW2 part is false. If it where to be released in 2010 it would be 5 years from the premiere from GW1, and that's a short time for a good ORPG IMHO :/ &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 15:16, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * It certainly raises the question of what Anet/NCSoft's plans for GW's future are. Will they keep supporting it, ie, running the servers? What about patches, or additional new content? Does GW get shut down after GW2 is released? Or do they keep running 2 product lines, which seems entirely doable (and profitable) to me, especially if GW2 is on a subscription-fee MMO model (which I hope it won't be). — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 15:30, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, you don't just go ahead and make a new game like that... you stick with the popular world you've already sucked a million people into, and expand on it. Making a new game, even if it is in three years, would only serve to lose players in the long run, I believe. Preferably, they release a sequel when GW starts to get old... graphics aren't quite up to snuff anymore, gameplay is getting repetitive, etc... and so far, the graphics still outshine most other MMORPGs, and they haven't run out of ideas for new skills/gameplay yet. Three years is a long time to go without a sequel in a gaming world, but as far as MMO's go, it's not nearly enough time. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 15:32, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Good points. and Santax I dont play wow because 1. I dont have a job 2. I don't like grinding 3. GW is meant to be better PvP. But thats off topic. Yeah jioeruji is right, games are a made by suits - its a buisness. making an entirely new game for not much reason isn't going to brilliant on profits so they'll proly stick with wot they got until people stop playing. [[image:jups.jpg|16px]]
 * All you've heard about C4 is from the Inquirer and Gaile said some of it is misleading. How do you know for sure there are not more profs? How do you know it's leaning heavily to PvE? You don't even know what the new races (if playable) even look like. 132.203.83.38 17:58, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Well there is the little elf goblin thingy. As for creating a "GW2" and concerns that it would shut down the original servers; take a look at the everquest games(online ones), The original EQ is still running I believe, the PS2 Everquest game is still running(but dyeing popularity wise), all while ever quest 2 has 3 expansions and another one on the way. If theres something to learn about them is that as long as a company can keep sucking money out of something it will keep it up. Now guild wars doesn't have subscription fees so I don't think it would run quite as long after a sequel is released but they could still suck money out of team speak servers as long as there are people playing-- Sefre  [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|18px|]] 22:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * The servers are still up for the original Diablo and Warcraft. -- Gordon Ecker 22:51, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Protect
Lots of people (inc. myself) have placed the inquier link in the links section of the page, only to have it reverted. I propose protecting this page.--Nog64Talk 17:35, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Rampant speculation on the "Eye of the North" name
Even before hearing the "Eye of the North" name, many have speculated that things may take place in the "northern regions". However, I'm more interested in the "Eye of the" part. "Eye of the Storm" was one of the nice pre-Searing tunes, and, as was mentioned, "Guild Wars: Eye of the North" does raise some suspicions. Still, I would trade more pre-Searing for Gwen as a Monk Hero, and that's not likely if it's an expansion set in the past. -- Dashface  18:12, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Not likely. All names for GW were one word. I don't see them ruining tradition. Though I'm not saying it to be impossible, just unlikely. Sith 19:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I can certainly see them using a multi-word name just to get the GW:EN acronym. It's too good to pass up. Remember also that Prophecies didn't have that name until Factions was released, so it's not as much of a tradition as it seems. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 20:33, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I think 2 ocassions could never be counted as a traditon. more a co-icidence. Also you'll find most games use single word titles -more effective and rememeberable than "Nightfall comes in elona". 21:15, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, it's better than "Elonian Nightfall". Then we'd have to call it GW:EN. ;) -- Peej 21:27, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

March 6th news
The alledged race list just got a lot more plausible. -- Gordon Ecker 19:36, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * For all we know, ArenaNet said something about a second major story arc where the list of races would battle for control of some relic of whatever mystical ability ... which the tech tabloid mis-understood to refer to GW2 and a list of playable races. They got enough of the game's terminology wrong in their story to make it clear that they weren't working off of an actual press release, so it was likely something they got someone at NCsoft or ArenaNet to slip out in a conversation somewhere.  The site will have enough facts to be able to claim that they broke the story first - but they will have mis-led many players in the process.  Then again, maybe they are right - only time will tell - but I won't believe it until it's official.
 * Like I said on GWW ... my guess is that the article contains some grains of truth, but likely got many of the specific details wrong. How many details are right/wrong is yet to be seen, and I'm not believing any of it as factual until I see something more official from NCsoft or Arenanet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Some grains of truth in a mile long beach perhaps? 132.203.83.38 20:15, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * It's still proof that the article isn't a complete hoax. -- Gordon Ecker 21:59, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I believe I read something regarding the question of new playable races. I believe it was Gaile Gray in game chat that said no time soon, but maybe eventually.  That's the un-biased version of what I've heard.  Even if I had proof of her chat log, it's still not 100% for sure.  Now for the biased part: I for one, love the fact that there is a decent fantasy game out there with only humans as playable races. --Mooseyfate 23:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * When Gaile spoke in Kamadan yesterday, she wouldn't confirm OR deny any aspect of the Inquirer story except to say that the only part which definitely wasn't true was that it was an "official NCSoft announcement". I'm inclined to go with the poster above who mentioned NCSoft employees and bars... Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip :D 89.240.228.22 05:04, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Asura mini Revert War
I don't see any note about the Miniature Gray giant on the Nightfall page <_< &mdash; Poki#3, 21:40, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * No, but it did have an extensive list of monsters prior to release, as did the Factions article. -- Gordon Ecker 21:46, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * The Asura minipet is officially confirmed now, however, we have no confirmation whatsoever that it is related to Campaign Four, hence it shouldn't be mentioned in the C4 article. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:10, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Pre-Order?
I added a link to a very respectable UK Store that is actully letting you Pre-Order Campaign Four. If Their release date is correct then it could all come as one big suprise to us. The link again for you guys is --Chronicinability 21:51, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I think, based on the musings of the Guildcast guy, that the PvP weekend for Ch. 4 will be either this or next weekend. Something to look VERY forward too.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 21:53, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Why has my link been removed already? I specifically added it to the "However, for personal estimation of the release date, the following facts may be provide some starting points" Section as its not been comfirmed, as far as we know. But i still think people should be able to see it.--Chronicinability 21:55, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * I doubt that they would release the C4 information and have a PvP weekend in such close proximity. Just, think of marketing. They release information first, and then let the screaming fans die down... and then they release PvP... and then let the screaming fans die down. It's to keep people on their toes. They wouldn't give it to us all at once, I don't think. Leina 08:55, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Two reasons ... first, we don't insert advertisements for retail sites. Second, retail release dates are notoriously unreliable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:58, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Ok that is understood and i didnt mean for it to be an advertisement, just purely for people to know that the release date has been speculated and the company is certain enough of it to allow for pre-orders. Yes the dates are unreliable but i thought that was what that section of the page was for? Unreliable evidence that people can make up their own mind on. Maybe a note refferring to the fact that 'Certain retailers are taking pre-orders already and are telling consumers that the game will be released on 06-Apr-2007 in the UK.' Therefore providing the information but without the advertisment for the particuar retailer? --Chronicinability 22:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * The estimation information is all factual information either provided or stated by ArenaNet. On all past campaigns we've always avoided listing retailer dates.  Back before Factions came out, nearly every retailer was giving a release date at the end of March and other fansites were listing it and users in their forums were making fun of GuildWiki for its stance to only list dates substantiated by ArenaNet.  Then the retailers date came and went and the actual release date was announced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:08, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Also, right now is the first time that we actually have official information from NCSoft (The magazines that will have information). If the campaign were to be released in thirty days, we woudl have heard a lot more by now.--User:Albinobird[[Image:Albinobirdsigicon.JPG|Albinobird]] 22:24, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, Play.com listed the campaign 4 release date as March 1st, 2007 back in December. -- Gordon Ecker 22:30, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Trademark
Every once in a while, I look at The website for the US Patent and Trademark Office. This morning, I did a scan and found that "GUILD WARS: EYE OF THE NORTH" has been trademarked. Details:
 * Word Mark GUILD WARS: EYE OF THE NORTH
 * Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing entertainment in the nature of electronic games, and multiplayer electronic gaming, and multiplayer game competitions, all by means of electronic or optical communications networks; providing information, electronic publications, online portal services and advice, all by means of electronic or optical networks, in the fields of electronic entertainment, games, amusement type activity games and multiplayer game competitions; providing a website featuring online computer games, musical performances, musical videos, related film clips, photographs and other multimedia materials; electronic publishing services, namely, development and dissemination of text and graphic works by means of electronic or optical communications networks, featuring entertainment in the field of games
 * Standard Characters Claimed
 * Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
 * Design Search Code
 * Serial Number 77122933
 * Filing Date March 6, 2007
 * Current Filing Basis 1B
 * Original Filing Basis 1B
 * Owner (APPLICANT) NCsoft Corporation CORPORATION REPUBLIC OF KOREA SEUNG KWANG BUILDING 157-33 SAMSEONG-DONG GANGNAM-GU SEOUL, 135-090 REPUBLIC OF KOREA
 * Attorney of Record Peter J. Willsey
 * Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
 * Register PRINCIPAL
 * Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

So now we have two sources supporting the new campaign name. The rest of the Inquirer's info is still in question, but at least one part that ArenaNet said was correct from their story has been confirmed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:42, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

UPDATE! I overlooked it ... that's not all they trademarked:
 * Word Mark GUILD WARS 2
 * Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing entertainment in the nature of electronic games, and multiplayer electronic gaming, and multiplayer game competitions, all by means of electronic communications networks; providing information, advice and electronic publications, namely, magazines and newsletters, all by means of electronic communications networks and in the fields of electronic entertainment, games, amusement type activity games and multiplayer game competitions; providing a website featuring online computer games, musical performances, musical videos, related film clips, photographs and other multimedia materials
 * Standard Characters Claimed
 * Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
 * Design Search Code
 * Serial Number 77122945
 * Filing Date March 6, 2007
 * Current Filing Basis 1B
 * Original Filing Basis 1B
 * Owner (APPLICANT) NCsoft Corporation CORPORATION REPUBLIC OF KOREA SEUNG KWANG BUILDING 157-33 SAMSEONG-DONG GANGNAM-GU SEOUL, 135-090 REPUBLIC OF KOREA
 * Attorney of Record Peter J. Willsey
 * Prior Registrations 2887785;2887786;2890366
 * Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
 * Register PRINCIPAL
 * Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

So now there's evidence supporting "Guild Wars 2" as well (or, they're just messing with our minds by trademarking these). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:21, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As I understand it, another company trying to trademark the Guild Wars 2 name would be on shaky legal ground at best. Is this registration really necessary if they do not intend on (at the very least) leaving their options open? -- Dashface [[Image:Dashface.png]] 00:37, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

The Inquirer
Some news to you guys. I checked information with The Inquirer. Unfortunally the editor said to me dont share the information that i received from them until the date =x, but i think that is necessary show both sides. But respecting the request, i can just say to you that very soon we must discovery "who is right, who is wrong". -- The King Arthur 15:24, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * This has been discussed extensively. To be blunt, I couldn't care less what the Inquirer's editor states.  But, as I've posted elsewhere: my guess is that the article contains some grains of truth, but likely got many of the specific details wrong. They likely have enough right to be able to claim that they broke the story first, although there is likely misinformation in their release as well.  How many details are right/wrong is yet to be seen, and I'm not believing any of it as factual until I see something more official from NCsoft or Arenanet.  The PC Gamer article due to start arriving this week is the first secondary source into which I would place any credibility. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:35, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * BTW: Posting that "I've heard from source xyz, but can't tell you what they say until after a secret date" is as good as posting nothing at all. The statement is utterly meaningless.  It's frequently used by people who actually have no facts.  After some news item comes out, they post "that's exactly what I was told by my confidential source" - even though they never actually had any information and just post that statement after some random news release to make themselves sound well informed.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * If what you say is right, neither the name is truth. Maybe is just all false. --The King Arthur 15:48, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Note: the following is a reply to one of your earlier replies that you've re-written. As a result, it does not seem a logical reply to your currently shown reply above:
 * No, you posted that the editor shared information with you, but you can't tell anyone what that information is until after a date that you can't tell us. Which falls spot on to my statement: Posting that "I've heard from source xyz, but can't tell you what they say until after a secret date" is as good as posting nothing at all.
 * It's already a known fact that the magazines listed at this link will have multiple Guild Wars related articles, and that the first of these will be reaching subscriber's mail boxes starting on or around March 15th. At that point, real information will be available - rather than the questionable quality of information from the Inquirer.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:05, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * On a side note, journalists with exclusive information aren't going to give it out to just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Who's to say that the innocent-looking person who calls them up looking for more info doesn't work for a rival publication and wants to scoop them?  While the information from the Inquirer in and of itself is questionable, any information from people who say they talked to someone at the Inquirer is even more suspect. Jinkas 16:09, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Unfortunally i dont have the right to violate the request of the site, because is NCSOFT request. -- The King Arthur 16:13, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem with that argument is that it implies that the Inquirer editor had no moral problems whatsoever violating the NCSoft request himself in order to provide more information to you. That fact, in itself, makes your statements highly suspect.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Ok people, nevermind. -- The King Arthur 16:23, 12 March 2007 (CDT) Sent a mail to you. The King Arthur 17:11, 12 March 2007 (CDT)