Talk:Guild Wars Eye of the North

come on.. Skuld  05:05, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * come on? with Factions edging out of the way.. people need some false hope in info boxes... they were starting to run out... --Jamie 05:06, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * We won't be doing anything with this article for quite a while, but anyway, no damage done by creating it. If ANet started working on it, so can we. ;) --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L block]] 05:20, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure this is the campaign which will have the "kill everything, speed up team, pets turn into 'the darknesses' and then finish by the whole team doing the warrior dance" skill... the only problem is by Campaign 6 it will be nerfed by requiring 30 energy & 13 points into strength --Jamie 05:27, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Then you equip a nice off-hand which gives you 12 energy for 9 blood magic or something and use the skill again. End of story. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 05:34, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

This page implies that campaign 4 has been announced or reliable information has been given about it. I don't think anything has been said about it. The article states "Campaign Four (a.k.a. Chapter Four) is an upcoming stand-alone product"; how do we know one is comming? I think this article should be deleted or hidden until information regarding campaign 4 has actually been released. ~ --IAmAI 05:39, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * ANet did say that they are working on it, more of less explicitely, during E3 2006 and before (see for example the link provided in the "External Links" section). As ANet stick to their 6 months release cycle with two teams working on two future campaigns simultanously for roughly 1 year each the Factions team has gradually moved over to the 4th camapign at around the time Factions was released. At that time the other team had been working on campaign three for 1/2 year already. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fair enough, although nothing has been announced about, except that it will exist. Is that right? --IAmAI 05:59, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, we don't know if it will exist. We only know it's currently being worked on by the original Factions team (plus normal expectation of coming and going of team ppl).  It could get cancelled or whatever in the fututre. - 06:07, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

This article, in it's present state, can be replicated for Campaign Six, Campaign Fourteen and Campaign Thirty Nine. It's empty. Even the link says nothing. What gives? --Karlos 07:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, it was premature to create the article, and didn't make much sense. But now that's there it wouldn't make much sense to delete it either, then recreate it in a few months when ANet releases the first tidbits of info. Just let it sit there, idle, and leave it alone. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 08:23, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

If we know it's in development, then that should be in the article, right? There's two sources, one being the (removed) link and the other being inference from ANet's "12 month development, 6 month release cycle" claim. --68.142.14.34 08:55, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, the first few times I tried that link, it didn't display an article - only had the "spiffy" and "iffy" sections and a couple advertisements under it. Looks like it may have been a database glitch, as an article now comes up.  Still the extent of mention of Campaign 4 in it appears to be "They wanted to get the word out that development on both Campaign 3 and 4 of Guild Wars was well underway", which doesn't seem enough to justify the link to me as it provides zero information on it outside of 'we're working on it'.  If someone disagrees, they could add it back in. - Barek (talk • contribs) -
 * I disagree, it's oane of the reasons for creating this article the fact that they said they are working on it. And as a side note please sign your coments!--Phoenix [[Image:Phoenix_Benu.png]] 06:27, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I usually remember to sign them, adding it in now.
 * On the article, I still disagree that a half sentence mention justifies being added as a link; but I don't feel strongly enough about it to debate the point and won't protest further than this that it's back. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:17, 16 June 2006 (CDT)