Well normally I'd agree with you, but when the devs say its not an MMORPG, I'm inclined to believe that it's not an MMORPG.
/seconded
the problem is, unless the game is marketted properly and the new subgenre they try to make isn't pushed properly in that marketing, then customers/players will pigeonhole the games into what fits
/thirded (hmm...)
Its like saying BF2142 is an MMO. You logon to the EA server together with thousands of others then you select a server together with a smaller group. Hell...BF2142 is even more MMO than GW
---------------------------------------- Playing: Rogue Played: AO, CoH, DAoC, EQII, Horizons, Planetside, SWG Tested: AC2, Lineage II, Vanguard, WoW...and more
Ummm, how about because the COMPANY itself says it is not? They call their product a 'Cooperative Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game'.
They acknowledge that it is not Massively Multiplayer. How can it be when only a handful of folks can *ever* actually adventure together. Just because a larger handful can meet up in the towns and villages does not make it Massive.
There is nothing wrong with GW being CMORPG. Why cannot it be its own, groundbreaking genre? Why does it just *have* to be MMORPG?
Well normally I'd agree with you, but when the devs say its not an MMORPG, I'm inclined to believe that it's not an MMORPG.
/seconded
the problem is, unless the game is marketted properly and the new subgenre they try to make isn't pushed properly in that marketing, then customers/players will pigeonhole the games into what fits
/thirded (hmm...)
Its like saying BF2142 is an MMO. You logon to the EA server together with thousands of others then you select a server together with a smaller group. Hell...BF2142 is even more MMO than GW
/fourthed (had to...)
While this does not have multiple servers to log into and anyone can meet up with anyother player (given the obvious considerations), it is still a CORPG. There will be more games to follow in this genre and GW will still go down in history as one of the most successful games ever, not just in a "MMO" catagory but across all catagories.
The game is massive in its scope and intentionally not in its game play.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Well then by all the GW fanboi arguments we need to add Counterstrike, hmm i play the role of Poker player ok Poker World is now MMO... ohhh ohhh ohh dont forget Neopets by GW standards its an MMO ... lmao get a grip GW is what is a nice game for those that like that style of play but an MMO it will never be till GW2 .. thats why they are making GW2 the way they are to try and draw MMO fanbase
How about for the much better reason stated above and then seconded, thirded and fourthed... The fact that the DEVS say it isnt an MMO.
Why is it so important for people to NEED GW to be an "MMO"? The folks who say it is not are simply going by how GW is presented BY THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED IT.
Do you feel that GW somehow needs to be an "MMO" to lend it legitimacy or something? People bring too much baggage and bias to all of these simple arguments.
To me, its obvious that GW, DDO and others are an extension of whatever it was that Diablo was. Hellgate very much is in that category also. GW and DDO take that model and expand the scope of it by borrowing from the developments made in other kinds of RPGs.
Games like Everquest, WoW, DAoC, AO, Horizons, etc etc etc are clearly multiplayer versions of the "big world" RPGs from the old days like Utlima, Alternate Reality, Bards Tale, Might and Magic, etc.
If you want to get down and argue minutiae infinitely and be arbitrary, anything becomes possible and everything clouds together and becomes the same, yet you move farther and farther from reality.
The reality is that there is CLEARLY a difference between the EQ/WoW/DAOC type setup and the GW/DDO type setup. Apply any labels you want, but those two types of games SHOULD have two slightly different labels.
It's pretty much simply because it's on MMORPG.com. People like to whine all the time about many trivial things. It's not technically an MMO but it's close to one, it's definitely had an effect on the MMO market since every1 thought Anet was daft to make GW F2P. They've done a very good job. I admit there are some minor things like a persistent world would be better than instanting which is mostly only in P2P games, nevertheless WoW has a pathetically acclaimed customer support and you need to whip out 10 quid a month for it. So it's quite funny how some people think if GW was a P2P game it's have servers made from gold and with graphics better than gear of war which would work on a pentium 2.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
How about for the much better reason stated above and then seconded, thirded and fourthed... The fact that the DEVS say it isnt an MMO.
Why is it so important for people to NEED GW to be an "MMO"? The folks who say it is not are simply going by how GW is presented BY THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED IT. Do you feel that GW somehow needs to be an "MMO" to lend it legitimacy or something? People bring too much baggage and bias to all of these simple arguments. To me, its obvious that GW, DDO and others are an extension of whatever it was that Diablo was. Hellgate very much is in that category also. GW and DDO take that model and expand the scope of it by borrowing from the developments made in other kinds of RPGs. Games like Everquest, WoW, DAoC, AO, Horizons, etc etc etc are clearly multiplayer versions of the "big world" RPGs from the old days like Utlima, Alternate Reality, Bards Tale, Might and Magic, etc. If you want to get down and argue minutiae infinitely and be arbitrary, anything becomes possible and everything clouds together and becomes the same, yet you move farther and farther from reality. The reality is that there is CLEARLY a difference between the EQ/WoW/DAOC type setup and the GW/DDO type setup. Apply any labels you want, but those two types of games SHOULD have two slightly different labels.
So using this logic, you actually would classify DDO as an MMO then since Turbine says it is?
"Because DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ONLINE™: Stormreach™ is a massively multiplayer online game where your character and the world are stored on remote servers, you will need a game subscription and account login to play."
FYI - I personally agree with you that it should be labeled differently, but I get tired of seeing the argument that "The devs say it's not, so it must not be". The devs can say whatever they want, but the product speaks for itself. If Blizzard were to say WoW isn't an MMO, that wouldn't change the fact that it really is.
Are people upset that a game that is almost completely instanced shares the same community as games that offer persistant worlds?
Is its classification going to make any difference? It's like debating whether a band is considered Emo, Alternative, or Metal -- It doesn't really matter, it's Rock of a certain variety, and regardless what it's labeled it isn't gonna determine if they're good or not unless there's something there.
It doesn't matter if Guild Wars is an MMO or just an Online RPG (and yes, you can role play here, matter of fact I've RP'd more here than in any other game). What matters is it freaking rocks, and has brought a great thing to the online gaming market. It's brought new gameplay, new ideas, and has managed to stay on top as a competitor against the other big giants.
So here's my question: What does it matter? Are people upset that a game that is almost completely instanced shares the same community as games that offer persistant worlds? Is its classification going to make any difference? It's like debating whether a band is considered Emo, Alternative, or Metal -- It doesn't really matter, it's Rock of a certain variety, and regardless what it's labeled it isn't gonna determine if they're good or not unless there's something there. It doesn't matter if Guild Wars is an MMO or just an Online RPG (and yes, you can role play here, matter of fact I've RP'd more here than in any other game). What matters is it freaking rocks, and has brought a great thing to the online gaming market. It's brought new gameplay, new ideas, and has managed to stay on top as a competitor against the other big giants.
Guild Wars is very MMORPG-like game, and it's very justified to list it on any list of MMORPGs.
But it still is not an MMO, because:
a) EQ, WOW, etc. games have persistent worlds, and persistent world is generally tought as 1 requirement for a game to be MMO. Guild Wars does not have persistent world, the instances are created and destoyed as needed, and every group gets a brand new totally reset copy of the same place.
b) In EQ, WoW, etc. the players spend a lot of time in an open world, where hundreds of other players may play around them. This is often considered as another requirement for a game to be MMO, an open world with a lot of players.
In Guild Wars, the instances only accept a very limited amount of adventurers and are closed to all others. And while cities are an exception to this, they really aren't much more than graphical chat/trading/selet next mission -area.
Now, if we'd include Guild Wars into definition of an MMO, we'd end up with definiton "MMO is an online game where massive amount of people can chat with each other, and form smaller groups to play together". You can probably all see the problems where that definition would lead up to.
I challenge all those who think that GW should be defined as MMO to give me some clear definition of MMO wich would include Guild Wars and other MMOs, but would not include any extra games like Battlefield.
why ask questions that have already been answered?
bottom line: the developers of this game said its a corpg not a mmorpg so therefore its not a mmorpg. i would think the people who made the game would know what they made. get over it.
OK I'm confused why people say this isn't an MMORPG, and the same for Hellgate. I played this and it seemed very MMORPGish. So someone please explain it to me.
Well actually, even the GW folks don't call it a MMORPG, the call it a CMORGG. The 'C' being for Cooperative. They realized from the start that in terms of a 'Massive' multiplayer experience, GW does not offer that.
Everything is Instanced. Especially the 'Adventure' area of the world which will only hold a single Group/Raid worth of players. Even towns are instanced if the population gets high.
So, no, GW is not a MMORPG. Neither is 'HG:L', for obvious reasons. Classic MMORPG have world architectures similar to EQ1, DAoC, UO, EVE, WoW, and so forth.
But, all that being said, GW is a great game for what it is.
OK I'm confused why people say this isn't an MMORPG, and the same for Hellgate. I played this and it seemed very MMORPGish. So someone please explain it to me.
Well actually, even the GW folks don't call it a MMORPG, the call it a CMORGG. The 'C' being for Cooperative. They realized from the start that in terms of a 'Massive' multiplayer experience, GW does not offer that.
Everything is Instanced. Especially the 'Adventure' area of the world which will only hold a single Group/Raid worth of players. Even towns are instanced if the population gets high.
So, no, GW is not a MMORPG. Neither is 'HG:L', for obvious reasons. Classic MMORPG have world architectures similar to EQ1, DAoC, UO, EVE, WoW, and so forth.
But, all that being said, GW is a great game for what it is.
No comment on HG:L, as I have not played it.
Good Hunting
It is labeled a CORPG, but its just semantics. Nomatter which site you look on Guild Wars is labeled as a type of MMORPG. Even on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmorpg you can see that eventhough they labeled an MMORPG having persistent worlds and such they still mention guild wars as a type of MMORPG.
I think to really get this argument settled someone is going to have to define what MMORPG really means other then it meaning Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because that really leaves it open to alot of different interpretations. Under that definition there are tons of MMORPGs, which doesn't make it any less wrong to call them such, it's just a poor definition.
Fine, I'll define it. Someone put this in wikipedia: Rev. Lazaro defines MMORPG as "Massive Mobs Of Really Pompous Geeks." It's not the game that makes the label, it's the forums community that inflames it
Strangely enough, if you tried to put that in wikipedia, they'd probably accept it. Wikipedia is crazy.
You missed the point completely. If the people are just around to talk or just to see armorless characters instead of fighting enemies together, completing quests, completing missions, or even deciding to pvp a little then what is the pont in having the combat in the first place? Without the combat, it would just be like Gaiaonline; looks ok and can talk to a lot but gets boring really fast after a while.
You missed the point completely. If the people are just around to talk or just to see armorless characters instead of fighting enemies together, completing quests, completing missions, or even deciding to pvp a little then what is the pont in having the combat in the first place? Without the combat, it would just be like Gaiaonline; looks ok and can talk to a lot but gets boring really fast after a while.
We do a metric fark ton of fighting; but we also socialize in game because there's the three little letters R-P-G that kids these days have trouble understanding means "Role Playing Game" not "Regal Points Grinding" and even if it's silly stuff like dancing naked in Lions Arch and throwing parties, it's having fun.
That's what makes this game stand out to games like Diablo that just uses a chat interface to find groups to slaughter stuff. I didn't realize /emotes and socializing took away from the gameplay! The horror!
We have a term in my guild for people who can't stand the social players in any online games....we call them b00bies (as opposed to n00bies) because it sounds more deragatory than MAMO's (Massively Antisocial Multiplayer Online)
I'm sorry for the rant but that was probably one of the biggest steps backwards in gaming questions I've ever heard.
One other note: Realize in the newbie areas of Prophecies, there's a title for reaching level 20 in Pre-Searing. It's a long task; we're talking months of playing to the casual gamer, and even the pros it's going to involve some hefty game investment. You have fun with what you can.
Comments
the problem is, unless the game is marketted properly and the new subgenre they try to make isn't pushed properly in that marketing, then customers/players will pigeonhole the games into what fits
/thirded (hmm...)
Its like saying BF2142 is an MMO. You logon to the EA server together with thousands of others then you select a server together with a smaller group. Hell...BF2142 is even more MMO than GW
----------------------------------------
Playing: Rogue
Played: AO, CoH, DAoC, EQII, Horizons, Planetside, SWG
Tested: AC2, Lineage II, Vanguard, WoW...and more
Ummm, how about because the COMPANY itself says it is not? They call their product a 'Cooperative Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game'.
They acknowledge that it is not Massively Multiplayer. How can it be when only a handful of folks can *ever* actually adventure together. Just because a larger handful can meet up in the towns and villages does not make it Massive.
There is nothing wrong with GW being CMORPG. Why cannot it be its own, groundbreaking genre? Why does it just *have* to be MMORPG?
the problem is, unless the game is marketted properly and the new subgenre they try to make isn't pushed properly in that marketing, then customers/players will pigeonhole the games into what fits
/thirded (hmm...)
Its like saying BF2142 is an MMO. You logon to the EA server together with thousands of others then you select a server together with a smaller group. Hell...BF2142 is even more MMO than GW
/fourthed (had to...)While this does not have multiple servers to log into and anyone can meet up with anyother player (given the obvious considerations), it is still a CORPG. There will be more games to follow in this genre and GW will still go down in history as one of the most successful games ever, not just in a "MMO" catagory but across all catagories.
The game is massive in its scope and intentionally not in its game play.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Well then by all the GW fanboi arguments we need to add Counterstrike, hmm i play the role of Poker player ok Poker World is now MMO... ohhh ohhh ohh dont forget Neopets by GW standards its an MMO ... lmao get a grip GW is what is a nice game for those that like that style of play but an MMO it will never be till GW2 .. thats why they are making GW2 the way they are to try and draw MMO fanbase
Because it's not exactly like EverQuest.
-------------------------
Because it's not exactly like EverQuest.
How about for the much better reason stated above and then seconded, thirded and fourthed... The fact that the DEVS say it isnt an MMO.
Why is it so important for people to NEED GW to be an "MMO"? The folks who say it is not are simply going by how GW is presented BY THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED IT.
Do you feel that GW somehow needs to be an "MMO" to lend it legitimacy or something? People bring too much baggage and bias to all of these simple arguments.
To me, its obvious that GW, DDO and others are an extension of whatever it was that Diablo was. Hellgate very much is in that category also. GW and DDO take that model and expand the scope of it by borrowing from the developments made in other kinds of RPGs.
Games like Everquest, WoW, DAoC, AO, Horizons, etc etc etc are clearly multiplayer versions of the "big world" RPGs from the old days like Utlima, Alternate Reality, Bards Tale, Might and Magic, etc.
If you want to get down and argue minutiae infinitely and be arbitrary, anything becomes possible and everything clouds together and becomes the same, yet you move farther and farther from reality.
The reality is that there is CLEARLY a difference between the EQ/WoW/DAOC type setup and the GW/DDO type setup. Apply any labels you want, but those two types of games SHOULD have two slightly different labels.
It's pretty much simply because it's on MMORPG.com. People like to whine all the time about many trivial things. It's not technically an MMO but it's close to one, it's definitely had an effect on the MMO market since every1 thought Anet was daft to make GW F2P. They've done a very good job. I admit there are some minor things like a persistent world would be better than instanting which is mostly only in P2P games, nevertheless WoW has a pathetically acclaimed customer support and you need to whip out 10 quid a month for it. So it's quite funny how some people think if GW was a P2P game it's have servers made from gold and with graphics better than gear of war which would work on a pentium 2.
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
So using this logic, you actually would classify DDO as an MMO then since Turbine says it is?
"Because DUNGEONS & DRAGONS ONLINE™: Stormreach™ is a massively multiplayer online game where your character and the world are stored on remote servers, you will need a game subscription and account login to play."
www.ddo.com/index.php
FYI - I personally agree with you that it should be labeled differently, but I get tired of seeing the argument that "The devs say it's not, so it must not be". The devs can say whatever they want, but the product speaks for itself. If Blizzard were to say WoW isn't an MMO, that wouldn't change the fact that it really is.
So here's my question: What does it matter?
Are people upset that a game that is almost completely instanced shares the same community as games that offer persistant worlds?
Is its classification going to make any difference? It's like debating whether a band is considered Emo, Alternative, or Metal -- It doesn't really matter, it's Rock of a certain variety, and regardless what it's labeled it isn't gonna determine if they're good or not unless there's something there.
It doesn't matter if Guild Wars is an MMO or just an Online RPG (and yes, you can role play here, matter of fact I've RP'd more here than in any other game). What matters is it freaking rocks, and has brought a great thing to the online gaming market. It's brought new gameplay, new ideas, and has managed to stay on top as a competitor against the other big giants.
But it still is not an MMO, because:
a) EQ, WOW, etc. games have persistent worlds, and persistent world is generally tought as 1 requirement for a game to be MMO. Guild Wars does not have persistent world, the instances are created and destoyed as needed, and every group gets a brand new totally reset copy of the same place.
b) In EQ, WoW, etc. the players spend a lot of time in an open world, where hundreds of other players may play around them. This is often considered as another requirement for a game to be MMO, an open world with a lot of players.
In Guild Wars, the instances only accept a very limited amount of adventurers and are closed to all others. And while cities are an exception to this, they really aren't much more than graphical chat/trading/selet next mission -area.
Now, if we'd include Guild Wars into definition of an MMO, we'd end up with definiton "MMO is an online game where massive amount of people can chat with each other, and form smaller groups to play together". You can probably all see the problems where that definition would lead up to.
I challenge all those who think that GW should be defined as MMO to give me some clear definition of MMO wich would include Guild Wars and other MMOs, but would not include any extra games like Battlefield.
why ask questions that have already been answered?
bottom line: the developers of this game said its a corpg not a mmorpg so therefore its not a mmorpg. i would think the people who made the game would know what they made. get over it.
Everything is Instanced. Especially the 'Adventure' area of the world which will only hold a single Group/Raid worth of players. Even towns are instanced if the population gets high.
So, no, GW is not a MMORPG. Neither is 'HG:L', for obvious reasons. Classic MMORPG have world architectures similar to EQ1, DAoC, UO, EVE, WoW, and so forth.
But, all that being said, GW is a great game for what it is.
No comment on HG:L, as I have not played it.
Good Hunting
Everything is Instanced. Especially the 'Adventure' area of the world which will only hold a single Group/Raid worth of players. Even towns are instanced if the population gets high.
So, no, GW is not a MMORPG. Neither is 'HG:L', for obvious reasons. Classic MMORPG have world architectures similar to EQ1, DAoC, UO, EVE, WoW, and so forth.
But, all that being said, GW is a great game for what it is.
No comment on HG:L, as I have not played it.
Good Hunting
It is labeled a CORPG, but its just semantics. Nomatter which site you look on Guild Wars is labeled as a type of MMORPG. Even on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmorpg you can see that eventhough they labeled an MMORPG having persistent worlds and such they still mention guild wars as a type of MMORPG.
I think to really get this argument settled someone is going to have to define what MMORPG really means other then it meaning Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because that really leaves it open to alot of different interpretations. Under that definition there are tons of MMORPGs, which doesn't make it any less wrong to call them such, it's just a poor definition.
Fine, I'll define it. Someone put this in wikipedia:
Rev. Lazaro defines MMORPG as "Massive Mobs Of Really Pompous Geeks."
It's not the game that makes the label, it's the forums community that inflames it
blah blah blah its a game like every other game that has lots of people paying it. Call it what you want, its good and cheap.
Strangely enough, if you tried to put that in wikipedia, they'd probably accept it. Wikipedia is crazy.
Would yuo really think that it is an mmorpg when the first site you see in some towns are:
1. Armorless characters(mostly female) dancing around and running around.
or
2. See people just sitting around just talking treating the game like a chat room.
Ummm I would, that's what towns and outposts are for in any game. It's called socializing; without it I might as well be playing Fable or Morrowind.
You missed the point completely. If the people are just around to talk or just to see armorless characters instead of fighting enemies together, completing quests, completing missions, or even deciding to pvp a little then what is the pont in having the combat in the first place? Without the combat, it would just be like Gaiaonline; looks ok and can talk to a lot but gets boring really fast after a while.
We do a metric fark ton of fighting; but we also socialize in game because there's the three little letters R-P-G that kids these days have trouble understanding means "Role Playing Game" not "Regal Points Grinding" and even if it's silly stuff like dancing naked in Lions Arch and throwing parties, it's having fun.
That's what makes this game stand out to games like Diablo that just uses a chat interface to find groups to slaughter stuff. I didn't realize /emotes and socializing took away from the gameplay! The horror!
We have a term in my guild for people who can't stand the social players in any online games....we call them b00bies (as opposed to n00bies) because it sounds more deragatory than MAMO's (Massively Antisocial Multiplayer Online)
I'm sorry for the rant but that was probably one of the biggest steps backwards in gaming questions I've ever heard.
One other note: Realize in the newbie areas of Prophecies, there's a title for reaching level 20 in Pre-Searing. It's a long task; we're talking months of playing to the casual gamer, and even the pros it's going to involve some hefty game investment. You have fun with what you can.