Untitled[]
While JaGeX had said they would never release RS3, it was mentioned (about 22 minutes in) in the September 9th, 2012 Microtransactions Q&A that there may, in fact, be a RS 3 in the future (and was even stated it would be talked about in future streams [around 47 min]). While this may be specualtion, I would love to have this fact (both they said they wouldn't release, along with the "spoiler" that they would) to be documented, even if it was then protected to keep from baseless speculation being posted.
- REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css
With Jagex having new owners no doubt demanding a return on their investment as new owners tend to do (hence SOF, Solomon's store etc), I just found the concept of them *really* using these gains to establish a "fighting fund" rather funny, as well as somewhat alarming if a story of this calibre is really considered 'good enough' to be swallowed by the majority of the userbase. Isn't this the very same organisation who ignores even the most blatant and easily-proven botters regardless of the number of both player & player moderator reports? Certainly no "war chest" needed to deal with those accounts I'd have thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.96.68.125 (talk).
Please keep your point more on topic, and menton how it relates to RS3.
- REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css
- I assume you're directing your comments this way. Please nominate the target of your comments by username or IP address in future to avoid misunderstandings.
- This is a 'talk' page, not an article, and you'll profit by noting the subtle charter differences between the two mediums.
- Please fix the time/date generation code in your signature. At present it appears to be deliberately misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.96.68.125 (talk).
- His time/date stamp was not dynamically updating, resulting in signatures all carrying the same stamp.
- As you may have spotted, it now appears to have been quietly rectified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.96.68.125 (talk).
RS3 / Next Gen[]
Both in official site update and "Behind the Scenes" video this update is always refered to as "RuneScape 3", not "Next Gen". Since this update is official announcement, I think the article should me moved back to "RuneScape 3".--Mariobaryla (talk) 19:11, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
In regards to confirmed vs unconfirmed updates to RS3, why are those without sources listed in the confirmed section? Wouldn't it make more sense to move them to a new section until they have sources? 86.30.133.187 13:28, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to World of Runescape.[]
Assend my friends, into another developing WoW clone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.49.14.57 (talk).
Oh shut up! Stop trying to think that RS is copying WoW. There are other MMO's that run a similar system long before WoW even existed. 
TonyBest100 
15:24, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
so many ppl are pesimistic with change! did you know rs had received bad reputation because of that comment you want rs to be like cartoon game? with no changeRealmguard23 (talk) 15:05, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Misifnformation[]
A lot of people are posting information as facts when it has either not been confirmed as part of RuneScape 3, or is an entirely different piece of content. So, I want to clear a few things up for everyone:
- RuneScape 3 is one update, not a series of updates. Everything included in the RuneScape 3 project -- the HTML5 client, the customizable interfaces, improved graphics and audio, etc. -- will all be released at the same time. This has been confirmed by a Jagex Mod.
- The evolution of combat was not part of RuneScape 3.
- It is unlikely that the summoning rework, or any of the other skill reworks, will be included in the RuneScape 3 update. Those are separate projects.
- The two new skills scheduled for release this year are not part of RuneScape 3. Each skill will be released as its own update, not along with the RuneScape 3 update.
- The lore content is not confirmed as part of RuneScape 3, it's just something that they want to focus on this year, particularly after RuneScape 3 is released.
- Not every major update this year is part of RuneScape 3. Don't assume it is unless it's confirmed as such.
- This page is not for information about all known future updates, so keep the information focused only on RuneScape 3. Don't post information about the new skills, or any other known future updates.
01:34, April 29, 2013 (UTC) Anon
HTML5?[]
Since RS3 is one update and they've released it while the HTML5 is still in beta does that mean that HTML5 isn't part of the RS3 update or does RS3 now consist of a series of updates? 04ismailjj6 (talk) 16:33, August 5, 2013 (UTC)
- You all seem to be missing what HTML5 even is here. HTML is a markup language. I can write a static web page with it. HTML5 has a <video> tag and some extra image features (suck as a native gallery!), but it's still a markup language. You CANNOT write a video game with it. Jagex's terminology, therefore, is very confusing, because the game will have to be a combination of ASP, javascript, openGL and HTML. In fact, while HTML5 is a real thing, jagex is just using it as a collective umbrella term for almost all modern cross-browser languages and APIs. A video game does not have a <head> or <body> tag, does not arrange it's content with <table>s, and is definitely not static. In fact, it can be argued that what jagex is developing is not a game at all, but a universally compatible javascript library. Whatever it is, it definitely isn't using HTML as we know it.--70.106.139.226 06:21, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
- It's not just Jagex that abuses the term "HTML5", though... IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 07:39, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
italicized?[]
I've noticed that some occurrences of "RuneScape 3" and "RS3" are italicized while others are not. So which is the case?
Right now, I'm assuming that:
- They are italicized if used to refer to the game. ("I didn't like RS3 very much until Legacy mode came out.")
- They are not italicized if used to refer to the update. ("RS3 is the best update ever.")
Would I be correct? --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:04, January 16, 2017 (UTC)
- See Forum:RS:SG and bad practices - your first assumption is correct, but the second one is not. It's "Jagex's video game RuneScape" vs "the world of RuneScape". --Iiii I I I 03:21, January 16, 2017 (UTC)