User talk:Regina Buenaobra/Archive Product Information/Mar 2009

What Happend?
"We want players to feel connected to what we are developing even though it may be months away from release, so during development we will be more open about our process and what we are working on." what happened? what is happening? and when will we see this actually happen? or are you guys just all talk? we have had no real progress update or any idea what to expect from this up coming up date in about one month from now. so has this status changed or what? 75.165.109.100 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Had a long post planned, but then I realised where I was.
 * Do you actually expect them to actually do what they say (stated in text)? Have you checked the forums?  Regina doesn't say too much here, Linsey's locked her pages so maybe they've said something in the forums, or I expect "well, since we canned our non-American staff the strange thing is that we're now overworked..."  That's probably pretty low for me to say, but I'm annoyed >.< for two main reasons: Motherboard fried = bad, Arenanet saying stuff then not dostuff = >.<  000.00.00.00 03:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, Linsey's page is only temporarily locked while she handles it's size, it's going to be unlocked soon. &mdash; Jon  [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]]  Lupen  03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. But it doesn't look good.  The 'we want players to feel connected' non-sense was posted 15th Jan, linsey's page was locked around what, the 28th; it might be interesting to point out that according to the wiki it's the 26 of February.  Busy or not Linsey's page was a popular places to get Q&A and discussion, a good place for the developers to 'connect' to the players.


 * Both Linsey and Regina were asked how this situation was going to work, and as far as I know (though I could be wrong, yet doubt it highly) didn't answer at all.  Yet, perhaps since I don't use the forums myself: I personally think all relevant information should be in one place, not spread over 3-5 different places, then perhaps I'm missing out.  Yet, again, I doubt that since the wiki is generally updated by the players when new forum info is out.  Though, perhaps I have missed something.  Am I wrong?  Is there a conversation between the developers and players that makes as all feel connected to what they're developing that I'm missing out on?  Yes?  No?  Maybe?  Could be, yet might not be, perhaps that guy over there knows?  000.00.00.00 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If ANet is really tied up on resources, but still wants to "connect" then stop connecting all over the place. Pick one forum and stick with it, people will know that if they want to hear what Regina, Gaile or Izzy have to say, then they need to take their topics to official wiki, not expecting a reply on Guru. Biz 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps Anet could make a repeat performance and create their own forums, just like they did with the wiki. King Neoterikos 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you watch User:Linsey Murdock/Journal you will see what there is to see as far as updates to the development of the April update. Also she has addressed the issue of her pages being locked there. She has also started working on her FAQ page that is encompassing all the most commonly asked questions. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 10:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i have been reading that, and was hopping for more then what she has talked about, which as of right now equates to nothing. as for making a forum or picking one, im all for them making there own forum that people can elect to moderate it, but anet isn't willing to do that as far as "picking one" wouldn't work because people will feel like they are "ignoring them" or picking favorites.75.165.109.100 10:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wyn: To paraphrase Linsey 'I am being pretty vague, It is really hard for us to talk about things that are still so up in the air. So, when we feel like a feature is to the point of being really solid enough in design and implementation that it is safe to talk about it, we will certainly talk about it.'.
 * As much as I love walls of text Linsey's post only connected as on a vague level, not really telling us anything important to us, the players, or opening up. Reading that did not achieve this:  "We want players to feel connected to what we are developing even though it may be months away from release, so during development we will be more open about our process and what we are working on."
 * If you're going to say you're going to do stuff, Arenanet, actually do it. 000.00.00.00 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has come up a few times and I'm failing to see what it is people are looking for. It's the end of feb now and the update isn't due until April, thus I would expect Linsey to be a tad silent on the upcoming progress of the content until she has more finite details for us. The "wanting to feel more connected" line was only in relation to the new update system of every 3-4 months and making us feel more involved in that process. That however did not mean we were gonna start getting GW2 development details. As has been said repeatedly by many different people, GW2 info will be released closer to the time of release. So in conclusion it seems people are upset either because they mistakenly believed the line to relate to the GW2 production cycle or that they haven't been given info about the planned update in April, even though we have more info about that than we have had about any other update before it was released. In that we know the HoM is going account wide, we know we're getting more storage and we know they are working on extra stuff to go with that. I'm sure Linsey will start releasing that information in March when the details of the update is more finalized. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 11:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Salome im going to stop you right there this topic has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUILD WARS2 AND IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION TO SOME HOW BRING IT TO THAT. ill add more to this little post when im done reading but i don't want to see anyone else think or say anything in relation to guild wars2 because that's a dead horse that has yet to be proven to exist(ie not vapoware.) 75.165.109.100 11:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was covering all the bases for everyone reading. As you will see, I also responded in regards to the april update too. It's only been a little over a month and we still have another 2 months to wait for the april update, thus I think we should just give the live team some more time before jumping on the no info bandwagon -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) no its not 2 months, its more like 3 days away from march so, they only really have about a week and a month before the April update if it comes out on time (ie the first Thursday of the month ie April 2th but knowing anet April 9th.) and as for what i want to know, what are the details? like some of the long asked questions about the hall of monuments? And what are the exact changes the hall of monuments? And what should we expect from this "storage update" should i be prepping my mules? and expecting to not have to use them anymore? or is it going to be (imo more worthless) and be a minor change that adds for example: a little bit of storage like +10 more squares in account wide and now belt pouches can hold 10 instead of 5? should we expect another month of development time because something happened to push it back and what is that something? i want to know more details the info we have is very very vague and can mean a array of different things. 75.165.109.100 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you assuming it will be released on the first Thursday of April? I know that was the old system of updates, but their is no guarantee that this will follow the same pattern. Don't get me wrong Mr I.P. I would love some info too, but best case scenario the update is still over a month away. If we haven't heard anything by Mid-March, I'll be on Lynsey's page myself asking whats happening, but really IMHO I think we need to give them a chance to get stuff properly finalised before they release that info into the public domain. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * because humans are creatures of habit also they have been working on the hom account wide changes for way way way way longer then these last few months that update was announced June, 24 2008 so its been a wile almost a year.... so i think there were some more final stuff they wanted to do to that part of it, and i think that for the most part she has been working on the storage right now. even to know what the ideas for there storage update would be epic and would fit there above statement, and would be way more info then we have gotten in the past. also they have had there chance to do that in the past imo.75.165.109.100 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I gather on her page, current live team can't code to save their lives to it's hardly gonna be something "epic" =P. HoM changes would be interesting tho. Biz 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently their coder is a "ninja", which I'm assuming is a good thing. On a tangent, I would love to be a ninja! -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

separate response, ^don't include^ I'm not about to complain about something we're getting for free. I wasted over $500 subscribed to CoH over the years waiting for their so-called "Free Content Expansions" and we never once got our money's worth compared to GW's actually-Free updates --> as a result, I will never trust them again. That said, when an actual-reputable company's rep or front-woman comes out and says (paraphrased) "we're gonna raise the bar again", we should actually expect them to follow through on it because they have a reputation to uphold. And they should answer for it when they don't. Do you see any of them here? Why don't we just head over to Linsey's page and ask her there... OH WAIT... Nope, just more clutter & excuses:  "we still have another 2 months to wait for the april update, thus I think we should just give the live team some more time before jumping on the no info bandwagon" ...O RLY? And then what? Will you stop "trying to cover all bases" and just let them speak for themselves if/when that fails? They can probably manage, they've made it this far without your help, d00de. No, the key argument here is improving communication. That doesn't mean through YOU. It also doesn't mean disappearing completely into the Ether or leaving one's page locked for long periods of time. Again: When a reputable company's rep tells us they're going to make us feel connected, they're inviting accountability on keeping us connected to the process. -- ilr  21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Linsey has been posting updates to her wiki journal about how she is progressing. That is far more open than we have been in the past regarding our activities. Prior to when I joined the company, we rarely had developers participating in the wiki to the degree that Linsey has. This isn't something that just popped up simply because Linsey wanted to post a lot more on the wiki after taking over GW1 Live, it was a shift in how the community department views developer participation on the wiki. She can't go into extreme detail about the April update, because details are subject to change, but she has been doing the best she can to provide as much information as she can. -- Regina Buenaobra [[Image:User_Regina_Buenaobra_sig.png]] 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that the ONLY reason Linsey's page is locked is because the minute people realized she actually was willing to communicate with us they posted 800k worth of walls of text that she just couldn't keep up with (and it broke her page btw) AND do the job of providing both the big november update and wintersday. As a result, as fast as she could answer and archive people were posting just as much, not allowing her to catch her breath. If everyone continues bashing her for trying to get everything answered, and organized in a way that she can manage, she is going to go the way of Izzy, and just STOP posting all together. I think people really need to consider the big picture when screaming for someone's head on a plate. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 22:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * wyn no one wants her head on a plate i (seeing as i cant talk for everyone) just want more information and its not two months away like everyone keeps thinking its really only one. also regina if that's all the info you guys are willing to give out then nothing has changed. like i said earlier the hom update was announced almost a year ago there must be some details that you guys could give us about that. 75.165.109.100 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I personally have to disagree. We have a developer that is willing to talk to us, that is something we haven't had for awhile. I think that if people would let her work on the update and focus on communicating about the update she would/will, but people insist on asking her about all their suggestions and every other topic under the sun. That's why she's putting together the FAQ, and getting her talk page organized (mostly in the middle of the night). I see the end of the lock on her talk page coming very soon, and then hopefully the communication will be better. Just be patient as you've pointed out, we've waited almost a year, we can wait a little longer. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh* ...I was only responding to Salome(sp?) but couldn't quite find a format-appropriate way of doing it in the confines here. Don't try to manufacture some kind of spoiled vocal-minority around the fact that I merely suggested the Devs have indeed, by their own actions, invited Accountability on how well they're communicating.  I just did the same thing myself by opening my big mouth and Regina rather opportunistically sniped me (rightfully so) for it.  But ultimately, it's THEIR reputation on the line here, not the reputation of the Wiki "Fanboy-Collective" who no one's ever put stock in to begin with. -- ilr  01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[sighs really bloody hard at Regina] Right, there it is then. Right back there, again. >.<  I give up on this. Good luck. 000.00.00.00 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

@ilr: I wasted over $500 subscribed to CoH over the years waiting for their so-called "Free Content Expansions" and we never once got our money's worth compared to GW's actually-Free updates --> as a result, I will never trust them again. u know coh and gw are both ncsoft right? -- adrin  05:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was that ArenaNet has provided a far better value than a monthly-payment MMO. It had nothing to do with any relations to NcSoft... Though I could understand where the red flags would go up for people who've had issues with other "conglomerate publishers" like SoE and E.A. -- ilr  07:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is also that they have given us more info on what to expect. They announced account-wide HoM well ahead of time, which is great because it allows us title-grinders to plan our playing time (thank you). They told us GW2 was in the works well before they were ready to give us details about the game (evil stares at Diablo 3). I understand being starved for info, but we're not exactly left in the dark here. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 16:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No we're not in the Dark... we're in the Spin-Zone which is darker and more dank than any place where the sun don't shine. But now that Linsey's page is opened back up, maybe we'll get into the Shadows instead.  One can only hope! -- ilr  21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I gotta say we're still in the dark. Even with, say the, HoM account wide announcement nothing was truly given to us when that info was released because Arenanet hadn't truly defined within itself what they were going to be doing - even recently Linsey has said they haven't defined what they're doing for the HoM and the community is hoping for this in April.  Arenanet speaking sometimes is like a double ended sword: sometimes saying a few words is good but with big things like the HoM making no true consolidated information block cause frustrations within the community.  Arenanet needs to stop half-assing things: Use your whole ass or you should just keep their collectives mouths shut.  It would save so much of issues. 000.00.00.00 03:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

NCSoft 4Q 2008 Release and References to GW2
I hope this doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of your NDA and that aNet will be willing to comment on this beyond the usual "canned" responses. In late February 2009, NCSoft released documents and a recording of a conference call held between NCSoft and participants who seemed to be major share holders. This publically released documentation sparked a question around the 46th minute of the recorded conference call that was responded to by an individual identified only as "Chris"; that GW2 release information wont be available until 2010 or 2011. While I know that any questions regarding the current status of GW2, the state of its' development, the content that will be included in it, its' underlying technology and pretty much any question regarding it or its' release date are all considered taboo by aNet, my question falls outside of that - or so I believe. So here it is: what actions will aNet be taking to retain its current customers, in light of the decision to discontinue any new content development for GW1 (chapters, expansions), for the next 1 - 2 years while GW2 is developed and is aNet management at all concerned with the potential of fan disillusionment with the Guild Wars franchise, or franchise burn-out, due to what could potentially be a 4 year period where no new content was presented to the fan-base? And a follow-up question that I think might be impacted by the NDA: is aNet counting more on attracting new customers with GW2 than with retaining current and previous GW1 customers? Thanks in advance. Pkohler01 21:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is guaranteed to fall under the canned response/no idea/no release to public/NDA/no info known category. Dominator Matrix  21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not official, but I can address your last point, as it was covered in the PC Gamer addition for Guild Wars 2. Arena Net is looking to attract more players outside of the current Guild Wars player base with Guild Wars 2. &mdash; Jon  [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]]  Lupen  21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Guild Wars 2 is in a question then there will be a non-answer coming.
 * Arenanet could try and attract newer players, yes, but it will want to fortify it's current player-base when Guild Wars 2 nears completion because it will make more of an impact on sales then new players, also if Arenanet's reputation has been damaged in the 'inbetween' time it will want to move to correct this. 000.00.00.00 22:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Arena Net does not need to do anything to retain its costumers. People are not expected to play Guild Wars every day for 10+ years, just like people don't read a book every day for 10+ years or see a movie every day for 10+ years, yet book sequels and movie sequels still sell (and often a lot). Just take a look at Blizzard games - no (sane) person plays Diablo 2 every day, or demands Blizzard to update that game now, yet there is a lot of interest for Diablo 3. Same with StarCraft and StarCraft 2.
 * What Arena Net is doing is the reasonable thing: they are doing the best they can so Guild Wars 2 is as good as possible, which means dedicating little to no resources to GW1. Doing the opposite (using more resources for GW1 but ending with a worse GW2) would maybe please some players now, but would only bring them (and us) a problem later on. Erasculio 22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just love it ... 000.00.00.00 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are talking about multiple people, not just one. It's time and resource management. Say you don't have any of your level designers available to make the levels, you give the task to other peopl, who rush through it among their other work. They would have undoubtably been taught just then too, which would end poorly. Things always end poorly when you start to lack the proper people from proper departments. &mdash; Jon  [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]]  Lupen  22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Taking resources away from GW2 is rather obviously going to make it worse than it could have been. I'm not going to repeat your statement given how my grammar is better than that, but I'm fairly sure GW2 would be better if Linsey were also working on it. Erasculio 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting in an epic Keith.Oberman.Length.question Thread! ...GW2? STILL vaporware HAHA -- ilr  22:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * <3 Keith Oberman. @ Erasculio--there are people who play SC everyday and there are people who play SC for a living.-- *Yasmin Parvaneh* [[Image:User_yasmin_parvaneh_sig.png]] 21:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And in Korea, some still play it in Ladders to get Girlfriends. It's still "a kind of a big deal" -- ilr  23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... well, I certainly didn't mean this question in the context it was taken or perhaps in the context that I wrote it. I really just asked this as a curiosity (I've read so much conflicting information from probably too many unreliable sources), nothing more. While GW2 may be considered "vaporware" at this point in that we haven't seen it, I have full confidence that it will be a great product and lack any perspective to present any claim about the assignment of aNets internal resources between GW1 and the development of GW2. I do thank those who responded with information, especially the information presented from that article in that magazine, I missed that one. Pkohler01 05:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a Live Team in place to provide support for current GW1 players. The game receives regular updates every month, and we do provide content updates regularly as well -- the upcoming April update being one of them. Last year we had M.O.X. and the Fire Imp. We also overhauled a lot of Elite Skills and re-balanced Titles. None of these were small tasks. We are working within the resources that are provided to us, and at this point we believe the current level of support is workable, in light of the fact that we as a company need to put most of our development time into GW2. -- Regina Buenaobra [[Image:User_Regina_Buenaobra_sig.png]] 02:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "New content", I meant this in the context of new chapters and expansions as opposed to modifications of existing systems and addition of add-on's. Regardless, I feel your response fits the context of the question as I meant it. I wont argue the quality of the work and support that the Live team provides, I feel they do a stellar job and humbly accept your response as satisfying the nature of the question that I posted. Thank you for providing it. Pkohler01 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?
http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/209028/omgrpg-why-wow-cant-kill-guild-wars/ I thought it might be worth a mention. -- Wyn 09:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion was on Guru (well, you know that :PPP), and I think the article is wrong. Not that WoW hasn't killed Guild Wars (It hasn't, technically), but the article starts off wrong from the first line: "OMGRPG examines how one competitor is staying strong". Guild Wars hasn't ever really been a competitor to WoW because ArenaNet stated repeatedly in its birth and up to release that it was not an MMORPG, it was just basically an online RPG where you could play with other people if you wanted + mass instances. They hardly drew anyone from the WoW crowd either, but it was never intended that they did, I think. Likewise, WoW never really snagged a majority of the Guild Wars crowd (people went sure, but not the whole community or anything "killing it") because it's nothing like Guild Wars (well, not when it first came out, debatable now). So in a sense the article is about as relevant as "Why Pac-Man can't kill Space Invaders": they're two entirely different beasts. Something more relevant would be like, Why WoW can't kill WAR! or something, since they're both MMORPGs, both marketed as MMORPGs, and both garner the same type of audience. Still good publicity, I just think the author wrote it for the wrong reasons, even though he basically agrees that they're different. Not that this is a bad thing, I think the earlier ArenaNet realized that trying to compete with World of Warcraft for their first game would be an exercise in failure, so like they did with GW, they bucked the trend and created their own game separate from that. DarkNecrid 14:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * GW1 was radically different than WoW. With the information that they have given us, (as paltry and unsubstantial that it is) GW2 will be a wowlite. Kelvin Greyheart 14:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actally from the information they've given us, they're actually trying to compete with WoW (now that they've seen what works and what doesn't) and still be different. I have no clue how you got WoW lite out of characters that change automatically depending if you're doing PvE or PvP (with the PvP characters being maxed out and UAX), skills that change depending on how you use them, and climbing etc through the environment. Having a persistent world and multiple races is the de facto standard of the MMO genre (one of the few always good things about them, at least), it's like saying having multiple character parties and magic is trying to make Final Fantasy lite. :P DarkNecrid 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that they are supposedly doing away with "fedex quests" in favor of a more event + consequence scheme (that whole dragon destroys the bridge example they keep tottering about). If they can pull that off effectively and for a majority of the content, then they will be totally different than anybody else.
 * Also, from a business perspective, WoW and Guildwars certainly are competitors. How many people here know someone who plays both GW and WoW? I don't mean play one for a while then switch for a while, I mean play both. Fact is, if either one of these games did not exist, their respective community would likely be playing the other game, that is the definition of a competitor in the gaming world. And the writer specifically talked about all those things that differentiate GW from WoW as reasons it has survived.
 * I think that speech by one of the ANet founders a while back (the one put on the website for a while "How to Make a Successful MMORPG" or something like that) really says it all. He talked about how he would hear some developers describe their game as "it's like WoW, but..." and just shake his head, that will never work. Ever. But on the other hand, the investors who are going to foot the $30 million bill for making a game still don't really get the whole genre, and simply understand that whatever WoW did, worked, so they are hesitant to invest in a project that does not recognize that proven formula. In the short run, that means we will see a lot of WoW clones out there until there are a few more GWs that break the formula and still make money. I am comfortable that GW2 will not be like WoW, if for no other reason than because ANet still has something to prove: that their success is not a fluke. They will take their time, make something revolutionary (again), and make a lot of money off it, and hopefully the investing world will see that WoW ain't the only way to make a successful MMO. If they can pull it off, it would be a very good thing for the whole genre, not just ANet and us fans. Satanael 16:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The main reason that GW is still going strong where others have failed miserably, is that ANet is consistently finding what's annoying in other games, and fixing it. (1) Grind, massively reduced. (2) Interference from other players, gone. (3) Being forced to PUG, gone. (4) Boring kill X of Y and fedex quests, gone. (5) Imbalanced broken PvP, gone. (6) Stuck to playing a choice of 3 builds, gone. (7) Having to wait your turn to kill a boss, gone.
 * Sure, they haven't 100% eliminated these problems, but frankly, they have vastly improved compared to competitors. And it's that forward thinking that will make GW2 the MMO that everyone wants to play, by adding all the features GW1 is missing and yet not add all those problems regular MMOs have. Not because GW is instanced, or PvP, or whatnot. Because ANet systematically fixes problems that plague the MMO genre. -- [[Image:User_Alaris_sig.JPG|Alaris_sig]] Alaris 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Satanael: Yes it being different to the point that it isn't a competitor is what has made it survive. Just because people often don't play both (btw I play both) doesn't mean that they are competitors. If people didn't play WoW they probably wouldn't play GW, they'd play WAR or some other MMO, vice versa is true too, GW players would probably play another free MMORPG or other games. They really aren't competitors in the sense that they compete for fans. They're too widely different and basically different genres and marketed as different genres to be competitors. If I had a dollar for the number of times ArenaNet stressed Guild Wars wasn't an MMORPG, I'd be rich. DarkNecrid 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles like this really don't say much bar what any reasonable person would come up with. Blizzard and WoW deserve to be at the top, WoW had a lot of work put into it and it shows, even now it beats Guild Wars hands down.  Arenanet did the right think and didn't go all Clone Wars with Guild Wars: Guild Wars was unique within it's own right and you see how successful that was.  I am saddened however that from what limited information we have been given is that Guild Wars 2 appears to be moving away from the forumula that made it successful.  Luckily, Guild Wars won't be (hopefully) going anywhere for a while after GW2 gets released. 000.00.00.00 04:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Necrid. Sure, ANet has tried many times to assert that GW is not an MMORPG, but frankly that is just a marketing tool to try and highlight how it is different from other MMOs, if GW is not an MMORPG, then what the hell is it? It is an RPG that can only be played online and is played by millions of users. In what way is that not an MMORPG? I have never read a single article that did not treat GW as such. Furthermore, just because some WoW or GW users would rather switch to "WAR or ome other MMO" does not mean they are not competitors, all the means is that there are other cometitors out there besides those two. And of course WoW and GW are in the same genre, namely they are both in the Fantasy MMORPG genre. Just like Lethal Weapon and Rambo, while very different movies, are still both in the Action genre, and like The Big Lebowski and Animal House, while very different in both style and substance, are still both in the comedy genre. Likewise, WoW and GW, while very different in many respects, are still both in the Fantasy MMORPG genre. If you still insist that they are in different genres, then by all means, please name the genres in which each one is. How many times have you heard people argue about which is better between WoW and GW? Now try to count how many times you've heard people argue between WoW and Halo? WoW and Eve? WoW and FF7? Of course they are in the same genre, of course they are competitors, but ANet and Blizzard don't want to say as much simply because they do not want to foment any kind of rivalry between the two because that will hurt sales of both. (Satanael 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Online RPG, like Diablo 2 is. It shouldn't be considered an MMORPG because it doesn't satisfy the Massive, there is no massively open sprawling persistant world to Guild Wars, it's all instanced. Likewise, there isn't a persistent world in Diablo 2, it's instanced among rooms (districts in a way) that only a small number of people can partake in at once. Reviews state it as MMORPG because it's just easier to say that is what it is even though it's more along the lines of Diablo 2 or Phantasy Star Online which are both considered Online RPGs, but not Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs. The differences do appeal to different audiences, and in the same way that a Football sports game isn't going to compete with a Soccer sports game, an ORPG typically isn't competiting with MMORPGs because they draw different audiences. DarkNecrid 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting opinion piece from someone who obviously loves GW. Thank you for sharing it, Wyn. :-) -- Regina Buenaobra [[Image:User_Regina_Buenaobra_sig.png]] 03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuck season 2
Did you guys have anything to do with a cameo of Guild Wars - albeit it was just the Box of factions - or are the writers/set designer of Chuck a player of Guild Wars? That was surprising to watch if that was a nod to Guild Wars! 121.54.92.21 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That sure was a lot of airing time. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With a price tag of 150$ that did more harm then good. Biz 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you think so. If you see Factions for 150$ on TV and all campaigns for 40$ on a shop, won't you buy that as soon as you can if you want the game? Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)