Forum:Second Guild Wars 2 trailer

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Use this page to discuss thoughts and speculate about the second Guild Wars 2 trailer


The resolution is better on youtube itself.


December 3rd, 2009 trailer[edit source]

Called the races of Tyria- can be viewed here.

Discuss. Shadowcrest 23:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Looks quite cool imo. I soo want to play it :P EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:09, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
Still fear that jumping/collision will ruin what makes PvP in GWO so much more than just using skills; positioning. When a warrior can jump over your line of defense, you might as well jump over your enemies' monk to kite. Which is, incidentally, what I don't like about WoW's combat. It really is mostly casting your skills and holding the Holy Trinity formation of tank-dps-healbot. Also, I prefer seeing rabbits run. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 00:38, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

GW2 profession speculation.jpg ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 02:20, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


Why does everyone automatically assume GW2 is going to have the same professions? You'd think the combat styles would change over the course of 250 years. Obviously they're going to keep warriors, or something similar, as well as monks/healers and elementalists/mages, those are staples. But as for Mesmer, Ranger, Paragon, all of those could be divided and split into new professions. A bit of Mesmer and a bit of Ranger to make a new profession, for example. As for the combat, I would think they'd put some sort of limit on jumping. Maybe it'll require a skill to be able to jump high enough to get over someone.--99.225.28.182 20:02, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'm probably wrong about at least some of the professions. But I'd be surprised if they got rid of any of the core professions--they are a staple of GW and would anger fans. But I'm 99% percent sure that the people labeled Monk, Mesmer, and the Warriors are correct because honestly: tell me that chick doesn't stand like a mesmer with mesmer armor, and look at the shoulder plates of the monk. Totally a monk. And do I even have to justify the Warriors? ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 21:20, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
They were planning to have less professions in GW2 than they have in GWO. I bet the Assassin won't make a return due to it being a Warrior with more game breaking mechanics :P Rit; maybe. Paragon; unlikely. Dervish; No idea. Core professions are probably going pretty much unchanged name-wise. (Disclaimer: except for the <10-professions claim everything is just my speculation!) --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 21:26, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
Yah, the one with the ? That's a dervish.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 23:35, December 21, 2009 (UTC)


I think you are incorrect on the Mesmer and Elementalist. Not sure but, it would look like the Mesmer and Elementalist are wearing the same armor. Just looks like its colored different.

Offical FAQ says that GW2 will have new professions. There's no way in hell they're going to do 5 different races with less than 10 professions. Each race will have strengths with different professions, and likely have professions exclusive to them, which will leave each race with pretty much just 2, maybe 3 professions that actually work for them, and that's with 8-10 professions. Could you imagine if they just did the core 6?--99.225.28.182 21:49, December 22, 2009 (UTC)
Anet has stated that they don't want a player's race choice to effect their gameplay huge amounts. I would be very disappointed if my charr mesmer equivalent (because new profs) was at a disadvantage to asuran mesmer equivalents.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 03:05, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
As for my opinion on which professions will sort of "leak" into GW2, I would say there will probably be something Assassin-like. Playing Assassin and playing warrior is totally different. There will definitely be more than one close-range physical, otherwise it'd just be caster-city. But it'll be like "rogue", or "bandit", or "thief", or something. Probably mixing Mesmer stuff with Assassin stuff.--99.225.28.182 21:54, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

The one labelled ranger? looks very mesmerish to me (think presear male mes armor) and the one labelled ? looks more like a ranger (definitely not a derv as it would be wearing a hood) —Noman Nomansig.png (talk | contribs) 22:19, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. The game looks like it has ~13-15th century clothes, which is a little more advanced than the stuff in GWO. Also, just a note, the camera at this part is panning to the right so there's another male that couldn't be captured in the same screen. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 23:53, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

GW Snippet.JPG

Here's the guy that didn't fit because the camera was panning. He looks kinda rouge-ish, doesn't he? ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 00:01, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
That guy looks like a ranger imo.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 16:39, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

I thought i read somewhere that the armor is just gonna be light medium and heavy, instead of job based....

That would actually be pretty interesting, like different levels of armour exchanging between energy/movement and protection.--99.225.28.182 23:59, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
I might have the answer to all the confusion lol. Someone mentioned before that they are planning to have "less professions" which sorta makes sense because the developers might want us to try different races (as opposed to just trying different professions as in GWO. The fact that ur ancestry and social status choices (i.e commoner or gentry for humans) affects the storyline supports the above statement as well. So i think instead of choosing professions at character creation they might only have race selection and maybe professions can be chosen in-game adding a cool dynamic to the game. What they might also have is a system similar to GWO's 4 attribute system. We might have 'Classes' such as Warrior/Rogue/Mage, then (maybe depending on race) each class can be any of two or three professions e.g. Rogues can be Rangers or Assasins , Mages can be healers or elementalists or mesmers. Then each profession might have it's own attributes PLUS an attribute/Skill line that is class based! So Assasins and Rangers will have a 'Rogue skills' line. This gives more choice to the player (also eliminating "SUPER BUILDS") and reduces the need of having too many professions at characer creation!. OR maybe i just suggested a cool race/profession system that probably doesn't exist in GW2 lol. Anyway if my ideas turn out to be anywhere close, you know where you heard it first folks :) xxx --Ranger_Romeo 16:04, December 28, 2009 (GMT)
Off-topic, but where did the acronym GWO come from? What's the O for, 'Original'? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 16:21, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
lol, yes the O stands for Original, i don't know where I picked it up from though. Oh ANOTHER THING GUYS, i just read this article http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/473/feature/3812/page/1 and it seems that another reason why we can't guess Professions from the picture above is that instead of specific profession armours, they are gonna have light, medium and Heavy (which someone also mentioned above somewhere)generic type armours. So the RANGER? might as well be a ranger as far as we know. I know one thing though, it's gonna be harder when choosing targets during PVP if u specialise in killing one specific profession type lol. Speaking of combat, the article above says the they are making the combat "less complex" which i don't get. Combat in GW always seemed pretty simple to me compared to other MMOS lol--Ranger_Romeo 18:28, December 30, 2009 (GMT)
Gw combat is pretty complex. Unlike most RPGs you actually have to think before you start it. WoW for example is just a spamfest of the hundreds of skills you have. GW's 8-skill system is great, and I really hope they don't change it (too much).--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 07:48, December 31, 2009 (UTC)


AAh so he means complex in "THAT KIND" of way lol. Personally i found games like WOW more confusing, too many skillz to manage (and require utter nerdiness xD), but i think i feel that way cause GW was my first MMO ever!. I guess by less complex the developers mean less harsh on the senses lol, cause GWO does take quite a bit out of you, and the learning curve can be hard for new players. From beginning to end you are on your feat trying not to mess up ur skill timing and execution lol. You can't just click a monster and relax xD. But this makes me wonder, if they change the combat gameplay, doesn't the combat loose it's Guild-Wardiness if u know what i mean. But obviously they won't change the whole thing so much that it's not GW anymore, i should just stop worrying so much xD. At least in GW2, our player won't get stuck behind objects, and i can finally try swimming in the springs and beaches, something i wanted in GWO cause they were so darn beautiful! lol. --Ranger_Romeo 21:44, December 31, 2009 (GMT)

It would stop being Guild Wars if they change the number of skills or classes too much. I bet (read: hope) we won't see many unique classes (maybe the ones ingame now, with tweaks, plus one for each race), and that the skillbar stays roughly the same size. As for jumping, I hope it will be good for mobility, but I echo the sentiments of not ruining the current battle methods.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 05:03, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but along another line of argument, I can understand why GWO was never as popular as WoW. When you run around with a huge 8 person party, you can simply move your character and have your henchies do all for you without activating a single skill. You can change your ENTIRE build and armor sets in a matter of seconds, and while this may sound great, it really restricts your character because ANYBODY can just equip a gimmicky build and kick an experienced plays ass. It all adds up to make your character seem...useless, at times, because you can't really put the same level of work into a character because max armor/weapons are SO easy to acquire. The only difficult thing in GWO is essentially finding rare skins, but what does that matter in the long run... You really never feel the satisfaction of being BETTER than someone... I know exactly why the devs developed the game this way, to make it fair for less experienced players ofc, and I respect them for that, but coupled with the low level cap and the anti-solo attitude, the game feels less rewarding as a whole and is all-in-all a less satisfying experience. Don't get me wrong, I love GWO for this sense of "fairness" and I have clocked in well over 2000 hours on my primary account, but it basically makes the game END at level 20. In WoW, you put WORK into a single character and choose a path to level him up along, and you have to stick with it for the weeks that it takes you to get all the way to 80. So, in sum, the game doesn't grab you like it could because it doesn't immerse you in customization and there are absolutely no crucial decisions to be made after you chose your initial profession. Gah, my mind wandered and I lost my train of thought half-way through, but---to you devs out there---i hope you get my point that you need to make your players FALL IN LOVE with their characters as they grow up together instead of making the characters tools that can be flung in any direction at any given time! ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 00:51, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Power creep + normal mode = easy mode.
Couldn't agree less on other accounts. Items are easy to acquire because they don't matter as much. Your skill selection makes you experienced, not your choice of items. In WoW, all you need to do is roll your head on the keyboard to grind for leet itams and you win the game. You use all 15 skills whenever you damn well want to. There's comparatively less player skill involved. GW example: If you pit someone that's played a Warrior for 5 weeks against someone who's played for over a year, the newb is going to lose. Equipment and skill choice are equal, but player skill is not. WoW, otoh, is based majorly on item choice/time spent grinding.
As for being attached to a character: I don't see how that doesn't happen now. I have 10 characters, and play... one? Sure, my Ele switches between Discord, Channeling, Ray of Judgment, Melee support and whatever else not Elementalist related on a whim (Ele spells deal loldamage on HM, so I pretty much ignore those), but does that disconnect me from my character? I see her as a versatile caster, experienced in using all sorts of magic (and hammers), rather than a linear mage that can't do anything more than 15 tricks. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 18:22, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Amen Viper. Although with Grind of the north the GW attitude changed more in the direction of the popular WoW. I personally like GW because it's indeed based on the skills of the person, not how "powerful" their characters are (which is a redundant term in GW). A person that can play a class well will almost automatically make good builds, because he/she understands what is needed for that class/role. The morons are the first to be killed in PvP, or they are ignored and people focus on the more skilled players to take down.
The "accomplishment" feeling is not that important for me. I have it when I finally got enough money for an expensive item or the rare drop I have been farming finally drops, but that's not what playing is about for me. I just want the challenge of making build setups that work and get through hard things. Simply making a farming build that works gives me enough satisfaction.
Another thing @Entra: I dislike the whole concept of jumping in games like these. "Oh yeah, the enemy is charging, let's go jump around on the battlefield! Jumping twice or even three times as high as any normal person, because otherwise jumping in this kind of game wouldn't have any effect at all anyway!" 'Nuff sed.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 19:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, you wouldn't need to be able to jump much to have a big effect. Two or three feet, enough to jump over a log or off a cliff to your death, should be enough. Unfortunately, judging by that Asura in the trailer, we aren't going to see relatively "small" (for a game) jumps. Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 20:40, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Climbing, no jumping, fixed, and it's more realistic anyway. With jumping, there will be slopes you slide down from anyway, so I doubt that instead of programming that, programming which things are climbable and which aren't would be much more work for them. Instead of saying "you can't go there" you say "you can go here".--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 21:23, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
That would be a lot like the Legend of Zelda... Not saying that is bad, because I love those games, but it would limit my happiness when you can't jump around in a beautiful area as if you've gone crazy of playing too much GW. JamicaXD 20:16, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
GW is a fairly realistic game (not about magic 'n stuff, but about looks, etc.), So I must ask you: Would soldiers packed with heavy armor jump around on the battlefield? No, they wouldn't even be able to jump. Medium and light armour? Possible to jump, but I still see absolutely no reason to do so.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 20:39, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I getcha. WoW is basically wrapped around jumping. But still, GWO is very limited because you can't even walk down moderate slopes... invisible walls are more common than snowflakes in a blizzard (tried to think of a witty analogy and failed miserably). It makes the environments feel very plain and distracts you from some of the better sights. I hope they find a good middle ground, perhaps making spells really hard to dodge and jumping not affect your chances of being hit by melee weapons, etc. They probably know very well what WoW got wrong in order not to make the same mistakes it made. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 06:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Four words: Homing missiles. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

What Race are you thinking?[edit source]

I'm looking forward to making a human character, probably something similar to my existing characters. But when the Human guy in the trailer talks about the queen i was sort of put off. I don't want humans to be too much like old English folk as they are typically presented as in RPGs. I mean cut me some slack guys, MMO communities are multicultural lol. I did go down the "Hey I'm South-East Asian and Elves/Dark Elves represent Asians" route once which didn't go down well lol. But maybe this is where the whole ANCESTERY business will come into play, only time will tell lol. I am however really slow when making characters and having to choose not only the ancestery but gentry or commoner? this gonna be hell for me xD. I know loads of you guys are probs gonna think i'm stupid cause the ancestery doesn't affect character skill, but for me RPGs are more about me being in the game then me playin an avatar lol --Ranger_Romeo 21:57, December 31, 2009 (GMT)

I was thinking about playing a Charr, Sylvari and Norn. After killing, defeating and twarting Charr for so many times in both Prophecies and Eye of the North, I want to play them for a change. And if you've ever looked at the female Norn concept art, and female Norn in general, you might see my point that they are just badass. Walking around towering over everyone else and still looking good would be great. Sylvari are closely connected by nature, and somewhat (a lot) elvish. Personally I like elves, and I like looking at nature, whether real of in graphics. Sylvari sound like they combine those, with the added affect that we haven't seen them in GWO yet.
And btw, don't worry at being slow to make characters, you're not the only one. ;) As long as it affects your storyplay, lots of people are going to take time to choose carefully for their first character. And try multiple viewpoints, of course. JamicaXD 20:11, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
One of each definitely, the rest prolly all Sylvari. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 20:39, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sameish[edit source]

Yes, it looks awesome, but it looks a bit (dare I say) sameish) - apart from being a little more vibrant, and a little more "awesome" - it looks, bare bones like Guild Wars. Perhaps I'm expecting more than there giving, or perhaps I'm just pessimistic. RandomTime 22:25, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

There is only so far you can go with graphics if you don't want to animate everything with the 3mill cost trailers for phroph and factions.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 03:07, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
You mean the opening cinematics costed 3 mill to produce? —Noman Nomansig.png (talk | contribs) 03:19, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Each. Not the in game ones, these, [1], and [2].--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 03:48, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Tbh, I want it to just be Guild Wars. But a Guild Wars where I can play as an Asuran and I can Jump... Joshua Ed 09:09, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Sameish? Well, if you mean the graphics then yes, it hasn't changed a lot, but GW's graphics are already so great (check WoW or Runescape, hahaha) that it doesn't need much improving really.
But if you also meant the gameplay, I think you are terribly wrong. I don't know if you've read anything about it, but if its going to work as they say, it will sure be a very, VERY big step forth from GW1. EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 11:04, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Going forward is fine, just as long as they don't step sideways into something else. Joshua Ed 16:31, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
True. Graphics don't have to be much better than gw1 imo. The gameplay is the most important part (heck I even play old games like C&C 1, so you won't hear me complaining about graphics). --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 16:39, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean by sameish lol. I think it's because they want old GW players to feel right at home, and i usually hate when game sequels change the visual styles so much that it looks like a different franchise lol--Ranger_Romeo 18:31, December 30, 2009 (GMT)

Guild Wars already looks pretty good, it doesn't take much improving to have a great looking sequel. Plus, haven't they always taken the position you shouldn't need a top-end PC to play? So we shouldn't expect unbelievably good graphics (especially in youtube videos)Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 05:03, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
I hate to be the devil's advocate, but I don't think GWO got its style right. It had amazing graphics, yes, but what are polygons gone to waste? I think they finally found their niche in GW:EN because previous installments never had those "OMG" moments like you get when you wander into the tiered cities of WoW or those waterfalls in the Rugged. You always felt outside of the action because the camera zoomed out so darn far and, consequentially, you couldn't go indoors. In fact, the ONLY time I remember ever being in an enclosed room was that council room in Istan that you had to go through to get to Kourna... and that room was MASSIVE. The environments had their moments, but few (with exceptions, eg DoA) felt truly unique or noteworthy. In GW2, I really hope they get better control over that camera and enable the character to finally go inside houses and such. The swimming, jumping, and elimination of huge parties (1 sidekick for every player max, if I recall correctly) are a step in the right direction. However, from what I've seen, the environments POP and they each look distinct! I was especially amazed at the huge dam, presumably in the Crystal Desert (I don't think we'll be in Elona in this one, folks) and I hope every area has its own landmarks and unique features, which GWO sadly lacked in instances in the same region. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 01:13, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


I understand what you mean man. I mean if you compare GWO end product to the concept art, there is quite a difference for example. Probably an limitation of the engine perhaps, but when you think about it GWO's looks were not all over the place which i think was nice. And i like how the graphics slowly evolved, being their best, as you said, in GWEN. But i think they are gonna have more interactive environments (like inclosed rooms) now lol. But i gotta disagree on the "no landmarks" comment, the game did have landmarks like certain statues around the place, i also remeber a crashed ship somewhere, and some huge waterfalls in tyria lol. But the game's instances sort of made them inaccessbible. I mean nobody's gonna fight loads of monster just to get to a landmark lol. And running wasn't everyone's cup of tea. --Ranger_Romeo 15:14, January 04, 2010 (GMT)

Combat[edit source]

now, correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe this is the first time we've actually seen in-game footage of combat for gw2. watching the bit at the end (as well as reading that interview about destiny's edge) we can see that warrior, ranger, assassin, and ele (maybe not under those names, but the point still stands) will make a return. it'd be down right stupid if they got rid of warrior, so i don't think there was ever any reasonable question there. so yeah... just trying to make conversation.

p.s. i make it a point to, until more news about professions comes out, talk about gw2 as if the professions will be the same, simply for ease of conversation, and because i'm tired of every1 reminding every1 else that we don't know exactly what will happen with professions. Though, i suppose it'd cause some difficulty for the unworthy ones who don't follow news on guild wars 2.Akbaroth 14:46, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume too fast. As a healer, Warrior always seems to me like the least useful core class of gw. Since there's no agro system, with the right skills *cought*Protective Spirit*cought*, just about any toon can be a tank. The only undispensable class is a "healer", and even that can be worked around if you really want to.212.198.144.59
You never met a good Warrior, did you...
Warriors deal the most consistant damage of all GW classes, and are by far the best for spike/pressure (or spikestream nowadays) in PvP. Additionally, they aren't made of paper. I say this as an Ele whose main purpose in my vanquishes is spamming GDW and playing defensively because spells deal no damage to enemies anymore. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
i never said warrior was indispensable, but look at it, how many fantasy mmos lack a sword/shield and heavy armor class? it's one of the 3 (arguably 4) basic archetypes (tank, healer, ranged dps (arguably split into mage and archer/assassin)) that most rpgs can't (or wont) do withoutAkbaroth 16:06, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
You're describing the holy trinity, rather than the archetypes. Holy Trinity is the tank-healer-DPS machine that can only really be applied to games with terrible AI (WoW, for example. AI depends solely on Hate/Aggro. They don't 'think' at all. GW AI checks enemies for profession, health, armor, potential damage...). The archetypes are Warrior, Priest, Archer/Rogue, Mage. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 16:32, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
At around 3:27 or so a Charr character with the flaming weapon uses some sort of charge attack, leaving a purple trail behind him briefly. I'm hoping for lots of mobility skills that keep positioning interesting and important. The ability to target terrain for spells and effects would be a welcome change of pace as well. But getting back to the Holy Trinity and aggro, I'm hoping that if there is an aggro system that allows players to control where monsters attack it translates over into PvP as well. It could be something as simple as losing control of your character for a second or two while he or she runs away, or more of a lasting effect where you cannot perform aggressive actions against any target but the Tank. Of course, such a system would have to be meticulously balanced. Lazuli 18:48, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
...That would be dumb, no matter how you implement it. Losing control of your character? Hahah. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 19:07, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But with a short enough duration it wouldn't be much different than a knock down, assuming those are still around. And for the stereotypical taunt effect, think the second worst elite skill in the game except it would still allow the foes to attack the caster. In any case, if the primary melee class remains similar to the Warrior in Guild Wars (keeping its king of damage status), tanking/aggro abilities won't be necessary or probably even attractive in PvP. It will be interesting to see how the classes develop, especially if the emphasis on group play has been diminished somewhat. Lazuli 21:58, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
It's quite different, though. Look at KD skills, and replace KD with "foe attacks you and nothing else blindly for the next 3 seconds (optional: as if he has a chance to kill an uber protted Warrior with 9001 armor)." KDs make sense. You get knocked off your feet. The character you control should not suddenly look at the stars in broad day light. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 22:17, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
If any of you have ever played WoW before, I think he's thinking of a "Fear" ([3]) -type skill.... but what I don't get is how you're trying to control humans in PvP like mobs in PvE using aggro-management tactics... it doesn't make much sense, because humans have the ability to pick their own targets ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 22:39, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, any fear effect from any number of video games would serve as an adequate comparison (BG1+2, D2, NWN1+2, EQ, etc). We don't know much about GW2 yet, so this is all conjecture. I'm just curious about how they'll handle aggro. If there are skills for drawing or containing aggro, will those skills be useless in PvP? I think that Anet has learned a lot about the difficulties of balancing in a game that is, essentially, two separate games. I wonder how they'll approach things this time around. Lazuli 23:42, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
And, as of the Necromancer's announcement, Fear is in. It will be interesting to see if it has any effect in PvP. Lazuli 17:50, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Giving Tyria a voice[edit source]


An interview video with GW2 voice actors, sadly, no norn. Most of you've prolly seen it anyway, but here it is.--Rotfl Mao 19:49, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that these characters will become kinda like the "Heroes of Tyria", we'll see RandomTime 01:35, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
Dam I wish I could talk like a Charr xD -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 10:55, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
I can! :D--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 22:24, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
It's not that hard. Just grunt and growl a lot.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 10:31, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
[4] The Group is called "Destiny's Edge" and the norn is apparently voiced by Jocelyn Blue. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 05:40, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Caithe's description makes her seem like an Assassin, or GW2's equivalent of the mobile melee combatant. Lazuli 14:37, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the way all the actors talk about their characters is super corny.--Darksyde 03:16, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

True. Bet they had an auto-cue behind the camera. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 15:28, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Fiery dragon sword[edit source]

Dunno how many people actually noticed but I was pleased to see that the fiery dragon sword would be returning in gw2, even if only used by npcs.--gene195 01:34, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Not a chance! players WILL have access to that sword, i swear it. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 02:18, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Charr Guns[edit source]

Woo?Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 05:03, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Old news is old.--Łô√ë Roar.îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 05:25, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Probably, but still. It's not just guns. It's gunblades. Either that or really awesome bayonets.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 05:44, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Charr Gunblade.jpg

Did someone say gunblades? >.> —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:09, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Or better yet...Lazuli 15:45, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
looks like gunlances from the monster hunter series --Lusciious 11:52, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
How can you even imply that something from GoW is better than something RandomTime 16:32, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Gunblades are much better than that stupid chainsaw-gun. The lancer is just a "futuristic" ripoff.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 19:40, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you should go like 40k and make guns and chainsaws separate. They had cool chainsaw swords ^.^ --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 19:50, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sadly, the Lancer are actually believable, unlike swords that shoot bullets. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 19:51, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's essentially the same thing. A chainsaw welded to a gun vs a sword welded to a gun. And I guarantee, it would be much easier to make a real-life, working gunblade than a real-life, working lancer.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 00:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Again, sword attached to gun = BAYONETS ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 04:19, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Bayonets can be removed. These are swords with a gun integrated into the hilt, thus they are gunblades. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 05:28, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I withdraw my statement about them possibly being bayonets, so now it isn't even part of this discussion. Anyway, if I'm torn between races, the awesomeness of gunblades will ip the balance Charrward.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 06:11, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
So, I don't mean to meaningfully contribute to GW2 discussion with this post. I'm just going to point out that these weapons have been made. Arguments about their effectiveness/ineffectiveness will most likely come to conclusions already mentioned on the wiki page. That and the pictures are cool. -Ezekiel [Talk] 15:55, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Except you don't swing around a chainsaw like you do a sword. A sword of 4 lb is approx. regular weight, perhaps a little heavy; some swords are as light as 3 lb. With a gun attached, I bet it becomes too heavy for practical use in a medium scaled battle (provided you're not the first to die, of course). A bullet requires a pretty decent barrel to be shot with at normal power.
The Lancer's added weight is cumbersome, too, but spray&pray isn't the most effective of combat maneuvers anyhow ;) I reckon recoil would be less with that chainsaw, to boot. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 12:30, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Because, Random Time, plenty of people enjoyed Gears of War, myself included. Yes, the writing was horrendous. And yes, there are plenty of painfully annoying and even glitched parts in both games. But it's still good, gruesome fun. Anyways, back to GW2. It will be unusual to see a gunblade wielded by something a bit less... effeminate than Squall or Seifer. Lazuli 22:39, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I wonder what would happen if they gave Cloud or Sephiroth a gunblade in the remake of FF7? Anyway, I'd still call that gun-with-bayonet, and I shall compare it to something else: guns with integrated silencers. Silencers normally are additions to a gun, and, though effective, throw off the balance of the gun so it's more difficult to aim. There are some guns, however, with a silencer built in, and they are balanced WITH the silencer there, so they get the greatest effectiveness. A gun with an integrated bayonet would be similar. Instead of attaching that heavy knife onto the end and screwing with your aiming, you make it built in so that you can balance it right. Oh, and the Lancer is ridiculous. The chainsaw would get gummed up and jammed, chainsaws aren't that great with soft flesh anyway, and the thing would weigh too damn much, and yet still not really give any great benefit over sticking a pointy piece of metal on the end. It's not like they're MORE dead when you cut them in half than if you stabbed them in the heart (or below the heart) and fired a couple shots --Gimmethegepgun 02:48, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
Have you guys considered the possibility that there aren't gunblades (or whatever you want to call them)????? You have no proof that you can actually melee attack with the guns, so the blade might be a 100% stylistic, nonfunctional piece. Just saying. Oh, and btw dev's, if you give the guns ammo then I will personally ragequit GW2. :) ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpgtalk 23:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
/agree, though something that might be interesting from a gameplay/balance perspective would be clips of some sort. No buyable ammo or whatever, just you load bullets in beforehand and fire at a decent rate, but then once they're all gone you have to reload in order to fire --Gimmethegepgun 00:10, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Consumables never really seemed to fit into the spirit of Guild Wars (skill over items), but the reload mechanic you described sounds interesting. It isn't anything all that different from a Ranger preparation, though I suppose instead of a duration it would relate to a number of shots fired. Lazuli 02:51, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Something more like Signet of Strength or Glyph of Elemental Power, perhaps. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 02:59, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Would it even require its own "Reload" skill, or would it happen on its own? Using a skill seems kinda stupid. P.S. I think Caithe is a chronomancer, from the gamepla footage of her fighting. It seems to be a caster profession, but this is purely speculation. ~ JujipooJujinicon.jpg[talk] 05:25, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, for that one, since it's so integral, I would have that be a special skill that's always available when you have a gun equipped, and is not constrained by the <insert max skill # here> skill bar. And it would probably automatically use itself when you're out of bullets, and maybe use itself if you aren't doing anything that would prevent you from using it (probably could use it while moving too) and there are no enemies in range so you don't have to make sure you use it after each fight --Gimmethegepgun 07:16, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
@jujin [5] a bit below the pic of a silvari it says no chronomancer. also [6] indicates she's prolly a sin. and if you look very closely at her in the video at 3:32 she has daggers (nice ones), you can also see her with them at 3:35. srry for side tracking the conversation. Akbaroth 14:56, January 24, 2010 (UTC)