I enjoyed instanced world in gw, i have nothing againts it. however it would be nice to meet someone along the way. looking forward to see how persistant world will work for gw2.
It is a bit funny how some parts of this community create their own definitions of an "MMO".
Lets see... An MMO is (according to some): A virtual realization of a persistant world without isolated instances. Let's see how many current (socalled) MMORPG's actually meet those 2 very broad requirements:
WoW: Nope, world is not persistant and has a lot of instances.
Vanguard: Hmm no the "world" is in no way persistant.
Lotro: World is not persistant and there are instances.
AoC: Instanced and the world is not persistant.
EVE: Closer, but hardly a persistant world :-)
Ok so I am an idiot
Sorry that is just MY definition: In a "persistant" world, if you you DESTROY something, example: A shed - This shed will be destroyed for EVERYONE who looks at it (until someone rebuilds it or simply removes and clean up the debris.)
If a truly persistant world MMO exists, please say so - I have yet to see one. (Guess it would be a wasteland).
Instancing is great for storytelling and to instill that "heroic" feeling - Waiting in line to killl the same (endlessly respawning) monster is just... well less "heroic".
You can tell online stories in a persistant manner within instances. A "shared instance" (which is all a realm-locked "open world" is) is different... The bad guy just keeps respawning on a timer...
For you persistent = permanence? For me, persistent means that characters (or avatars, if you prefer) inhabit the same world, there may be instanced dungeons or phasing but overall the world is persistent. People can see other characters when they zone from Freeport to the Commonlands, ride their raptors across the Barrens, see them walking about the Shire, etc.
In GW, there are outposts which serve as hubs whereas the adventuring is an instanced version that exists for you and your party, not just dungeons but even explorable areas! I am not opposed to this system as I am a fan of GW but I do enjoy the persistence of the other worlds as well in particular EQ and WoW.
Developers use the word "persistent world" in their MMOs because the world continues to exist (or persists) even after you have logged off. Whether its instanced or seamless, all MMOs have persistent worlds.
Guild Wars (and Guild Wars 2) are not F2P and never have been. The only reason people lump them into the same category is out of ignorance.
Ignorance would be one thing.
I find there are many people from the "Every MMO out there should/must become F2P" camp who use it as ammo in their argument that "F2P MMOs are just as good as AAA P2P MMOs".
They'll use Guild Wars as an example, calling it F2P even though you clearly have to buy the game to play it.
They'll use DDO and LoTRO as examples, ignoring the fact that both games started out as P2P and changed over to a hybrid setup where you can continue paying a sub as always, or choose their F2P option.
Beyond that... It's really kinda funny to me that people would associate the word "free" with something they had to pay money for. I mean.. the word "free" should tip them off from the start, shouldn't it?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
It is a bit funny how some parts of this community create their own definitions of an "MMO".
Lets see... An MMO is (according to some): A virtual realization of a persistant world without isolated instances. Let's see how many current (socalled) MMORPG's actually meet those 2 very broad requirements:
WoW: Nope, world is not persistant and has a lot of instances.
Vanguard: Hmm no the "world" is in no way persistant.
Lotro: World is not persistant and there are instances.
AoC: Instanced and the world is not persistant.
EVE: Closer, but hardly a persistant world :-)
Ok so I am an idiot
Sorry that is just MY definition: In a "persistant" world, if you you DESTROY something, example: A shed - This shed will be destroyed for EVERYONE who looks at it (until someone rebuilds it or simply removes and clean up the debris.)
If a truly persistant world MMO exists, please say so - I have yet to see one. (Guess it would be a wasteland).
Instancing is great for storytelling and to instill that "heroic" feeling - Waiting in line to killl the same (endlessly respawning) monster is just... well less "heroic".
You can tell online stories in a persistant manner within instances. A "shared instance" (which is all a realm-locked "open world" is) is different... The bad guy just keeps respawning on a timer...
Eh... It's really all individuals basically sharing their own preferences of what a MMO should be for them.... then projecting it on to everyone else as "What A Real MMORPG Is".
It's like someone claiming that if you don't play MMOs a certain way (which just happens to be the way they play them) you're not "a real gamer", or "you're not hardcore" or whatever.
It's like going on Amazon and reading reviews for CDs from different bands. The reviews are filled with people saying "If you're a real fan of this band, you'll agree the CD is their worst". A few reviews later, someone's saying "Real fans of this band will agree this is their best to date". Each of them is basically saying the same thing, "If you don't agree with me, you're not a real fan like I am".
It's all self-edifying, closed-minded BS. And we see it all the time with MMOs as well.
All MMOs share a very base set of factors. They're online, they're massive, they have persistent worlds (that is, the world "exists" and continues running even when you are logged out, to put it simply), they support thousands (not merely 10s) of people co-habiting the same online environments.
From there, it's all variations on the theme.
Zoned versus Seamless, PvP versus Non-PvP versus Consensual PvP versus every other version of PvP... Theme park versus Sandbox... and so on... Those are all just variations of a MMO.
It's like looking at this image. All of those breeds are dogs. Some of them are small, some are medium and some are large. Some have short hair, some have long hair. Some have long tails or short tails... etc. Regardless, they all dogs because they all share the same basic traits that make them dogs. You wouldn't say "A Husky isn't a real dog because it doesn't have ..." and then list off a number of features specific to Corgis. Oh, you could... but you'd have a difficult time being taken seriously.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
For you persistent = permanence? For me, persistent means that characters (or avatars, if you prefer) inhabit the same world, there may be instanced dungeons or phasing but overall the world is persistent. People can see other characters when they zone from Freeport to the Commonlands, ride their raptors across the Barrens, see them walking about the Shire, etc.
In GW, there are outposts which serve as hubs whereas the adventuring is an instanced version that exists for you and your party, not just dungeons but even explorable areas! I am not opposed to this system as I am a fan of GW but I do enjoy the persistence of the other worlds as well in particular EQ and WoW.
M
Traditionally, Persistent World means that the world continues running while you're not online, others are online playing, etc... all your character's achievements and possessions, location, current tasks (quests, etc), status, etc.. are stored for next time you log in. The world "persists" even when you're not around. That's the definition going back at least 10 years that I've been playing these games, and it's the same meaning applied to other areas... For example, in Neverwinter Nights (the Atari version), people created "PW's" or Persistent Worlds that, again, continue running, evolving and such, even when a given player isn't logged in.
Like anything else in the MMO space, though, people apply their own meaning to the word. This is part of why it's so damn difficult to ever have a discussion about anything. Instead of going with established definitions, people come up with their own. And, inevitably, an argument will break out over whose definition of the terminology is the correct one.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
RE: In summary, I think Guild Wars and the like should be given a new category. Freemium Games for Premium Gamers or somtin like dat. ~
I've heard it called B2P, either Buy to Play or Box to Play. Yeah, it's a great game, well made, and a fantastic value.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Your entire thread misses two very, very clear points and I can't be polite about this because you chose to not attempt the incredibly minimal amount of research needed to post something that would have been worth reading.
1. Guild Wars (Prohpechies, Factions, Nightfall) is not a MMORPG, period.
Guild Wars is an Online RPG or Multiplayer Online RPG, whichever way you'd like to classify it, and as such it cannot fit into either the pay-2-play or free-2-play categories you have trouble with.
2. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG, it would still not fit with a free-2-play game based on the definition of free-2-play.
A free-2-play game is one that is completely free to play if you already have a computer and internet access. There is the option to buy things but the game is completely free to play in essence. This is not like Lord of the Rings Online, where you get part of the game for free (a glorified trial), but akin to Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine Online where the game is free to play but has an item mall. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG it would have no subscription but still cost money to play because you are buying the box/game. This means that Guild Wars would be neither pay-2-play (subscription) or free-2-play (no subscription, no essential cost to play), it would be what is now called buy-2-play (essential cost to play, no subscription to play).
You seem to have done some research but still missed the point in an incredible way. I'm rather blown away by that. Misinformation for the win?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain. (2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
It's not massive and multiplayer, it's massively-multiplayer and gw is not it.
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
It's not massive and multiplayer, it's massively-multiplayer and gw is not it.
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
Would that make Counter Strike an MMOFPS?
It has had millions play it during it's shelf life. Massive.
Anet itself calls GW a CORPG. Its amusing to see defenders of Massive MMO worlds and GW fans battle it out. lol
Who could have thought that WOW could bring super power like USA to its knees?
Originally posted by Arcken
To put it in a nutshell, our society is about to hit the fan, grades are dropping, obesity is going up,childhood the USA is going to lose its super power status before too long, but hey, as long as we have a cheap method to babysit our kids, all will be well no? Im picking on WoW btw because its the beast that made all of this possible
Your entire thread misses two very, very clear points and I can't be polite about this because you chose to not attempt the incredibly minimal amount of research needed to post something that would have been worth reading.
1. Guild Wars (Prohpechies, Factions, Nightfall) is not a MMORPG, period.
Guild Wars is an Online RPG or Multiplayer Online RPG, whichever way you'd like to classify it, and as such it cannot fit into either the pay-2-play or free-2-play categories you have trouble with.
Perhaps not, but Guild Wars 2, which is sharing the same (or similar) pricing structure will be an MMORPG.
2. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG, it would still not fit with a free-2-play game based on the definition of free-2-play.
A free-2-play game is one that is completely free to play if you already have a computer and internet access. There is the option to buy things but the game is completely free to play in essence. This is not like Lord of the Rings Online, where you get part of the game for free (a glorified trial), but akin to Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine Online where the game is free to play but has an item mall. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG it would have no subscription but still cost money to play because you are buying the box/game. This means that Guild Wars would be neither pay-2-play (subscription) or free-2-play (no subscription, no essential cost to play), it would be what is now called buy-2-play (essential cost to play, no subscription to play).
Who cares what the correct terminology is? The point is he proved, with solid numbers (length of time it takes you to play though content notwithstanding) that the pricing plan of Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 is far cheaper than that of the average P2P game.
You seem to have done some research but still missed the point in an incredible way. I'm rather blown away by that. Misinformation for the win?
Can you tell us exactly what the point is then? Because from where I'm standing he hit the nail on the head.
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
It's not massive and multiplayer, it's massively-multiplayer and gw is not it.
Hmm. I don't recall seeing those two words hyphenated before. Obviously your argument holds no water.
See? Semantic BS is just that.
To me, GW has the best aspects of MMOs while doing away with the worst aspects. It's a world where every corner of it isn't swarming with barely-literate chimpanzees, whooping and screeching underfoot, while you attempt to 'explore' and 'save the kingdom'.
Generally, the worst thing about MMOs tends to be the other people you share the world with. Since the threat of physical volence isn't a deterrant to ignorant and irritating behaviour like it is in the real world, nothing can keep the apes in check. At least when you leave a town in GW, you leave the idiots behind and the world is yours and your companions, to do with what you will -- as it should be. Given that those companions can consist of any of the thousands or tens of thousands of other players online with you at the same time, that more than qualifies as massively multiplayer to me. But maybe it's not massively-multiplayer.
In my opinion, the only time a completely open world is superior to a heavily instanced one like GW, is when it's an FFA PvP game when the whole point of it is act like chimps to one another. In this case, "...gw is not it".
Guild Wars seems more like a regular RPG to me being that mobs dont respawn and you customize your skills to perfection(most MMOs you level up get your new skills/skill points and keep spamming them). It reminds me of Diablo 2 where you would create a server , get up to 6/8 players (don't remember) and tear the countryside for loot with your 300% MFlolz. Now if Guild Wars was a persistent world then I would say it is an MMO because when you are out in explorable locations it does not matter what anyone else is doing in Guild Wars.
I'm glad Guild Wars was instanced; no more waiting to kill a certain monster or being asshatted. It is really a structural game.
I was new to GW and had decided to try out the "Trial" version. Granted it's a trial and I shouldn't expect much.... However when I start playing it automatically gave me an expiration date which was around December 26th of 2010. Instead of enjoying my trial version I was given total of 9 hours of play time. After the 9 hours is up... It was game over in spite of it not being on the expired date. The last hour of gaming time was NOT fun because I was forcfully in a rush to do the quests and etc.
NCSoft should give us a FREE unlimited version of this game. Even know it's $19.95 it still should be free.
Comments
D2D have a sale right now & you can buy Prophecy, Faction, Nightfall, EoTN for 59$.
I wanted to say this because I thought that the prices in the OP were way off.
Enjoy!
I enjoyed instanced world in gw, i have nothing againts it. however it would be nice to meet someone along the way. looking forward to see how persistant world will work for gw2.
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
For you persistent = permanence? For me, persistent means that characters (or avatars, if you prefer) inhabit the same world, there may be instanced dungeons or phasing but overall the world is persistent. People can see other characters when they zone from Freeport to the Commonlands, ride their raptors across the Barrens, see them walking about the Shire, etc.
In GW, there are outposts which serve as hubs whereas the adventuring is an instanced version that exists for you and your party, not just dungeons but even explorable areas! I am not opposed to this system as I am a fan of GW but I do enjoy the persistence of the other worlds as well in particular EQ and WoW.
M
Developers use the word "persistent world" in their MMOs because the world continues to exist (or persists) even after you have logged off. Whether its instanced or seamless, all MMOs have persistent worlds.
Ignorance would be one thing.
I find there are many people from the "Every MMO out there should/must become F2P" camp who use it as ammo in their argument that "F2P MMOs are just as good as AAA P2P MMOs".
They'll use Guild Wars as an example, calling it F2P even though you clearly have to buy the game to play it.
They'll use DDO and LoTRO as examples, ignoring the fact that both games started out as P2P and changed over to a hybrid setup where you can continue paying a sub as always, or choose their F2P option.
Beyond that... It's really kinda funny to me that people would associate the word "free" with something they had to pay money for. I mean.. the word "free" should tip them off from the start, shouldn't it?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Semantics.
Many MMOs - including those with monthly subs - have "free client downloads"; some download the entire client for the trial version alone.
Regardless, if you decide you want to get full access to the game, you have to purchase, as you said, an access code (CD Key... whatever..).
The bottom line is the same: You are paying to play the game. You are not playing the game for free. Hence, it is not free to play.
If you have to pay for it, it's not free. Very simple.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Eh... It's really all individuals basically sharing their own preferences of what a MMO should be for them.... then projecting it on to everyone else as "What A Real MMORPG Is".
It's like someone claiming that if you don't play MMOs a certain way (which just happens to be the way they play them) you're not "a real gamer", or "you're not hardcore" or whatever.
It's like going on Amazon and reading reviews for CDs from different bands. The reviews are filled with people saying "If you're a real fan of this band, you'll agree the CD is their worst". A few reviews later, someone's saying "Real fans of this band will agree this is their best to date". Each of them is basically saying the same thing, "If you don't agree with me, you're not a real fan like I am".
It's all self-edifying, closed-minded BS. And we see it all the time with MMOs as well.
All MMOs share a very base set of factors. They're online, they're massive, they have persistent worlds (that is, the world "exists" and continues running even when you are logged out, to put it simply), they support thousands (not merely 10s) of people co-habiting the same online environments.
From there, it's all variations on the theme.
Zoned versus Seamless, PvP versus Non-PvP versus Consensual PvP versus every other version of PvP... Theme park versus Sandbox... and so on... Those are all just variations of a MMO.
It's like looking at this image. All of those breeds are dogs. Some of them are small, some are medium and some are large. Some have short hair, some have long hair. Some have long tails or short tails... etc. Regardless, they all dogs because they all share the same basic traits that make them dogs. You wouldn't say "A Husky isn't a real dog because it doesn't have ..." and then list off a number of features specific to Corgis. Oh, you could... but you'd have a difficult time being taken seriously.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
F2P is misconception.
Aint nothing free except the birds and the bees
And you are grownups and should have already learned that.
Traditionally, Persistent World means that the world continues running while you're not online, others are online playing, etc... all your character's achievements and possessions, location, current tasks (quests, etc), status, etc.. are stored for next time you log in. The world "persists" even when you're not around. That's the definition going back at least 10 years that I've been playing these games, and it's the same meaning applied to other areas... For example, in Neverwinter Nights (the Atari version), people created "PW's" or Persistent Worlds that, again, continue running, evolving and such, even when a given player isn't logged in.
Here's a good definition of it.
Like anything else in the MMO space, though, people apply their own meaning to the word. This is part of why it's so damn difficult to ever have a discussion about anything. Instead of going with established definitions, people come up with their own. And, inevitably, an argument will break out over whose definition of the terminology is the correct one.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
RE: In summary, I think Guild Wars and the like should be given a new category. Freemium Games for Premium Gamers or somtin like dat.
~
I've heard it called B2P, either Buy to Play or Box to Play. Yeah, it's a great game, well made, and a fantastic value.
Your entire thread misses two very, very clear points and I can't be polite about this because you chose to not attempt the incredibly minimal amount of research needed to post something that would have been worth reading.
1. Guild Wars (Prohpechies, Factions, Nightfall) is not a MMORPG, period.
Guild Wars is an Online RPG or Multiplayer Online RPG, whichever way you'd like to classify it, and as such it cannot fit into either the pay-2-play or free-2-play categories you have trouble with.
2. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG, it would still not fit with a free-2-play game based on the definition of free-2-play.
A free-2-play game is one that is completely free to play if you already have a computer and internet access. There is the option to buy things but the game is completely free to play in essence. This is not like Lord of the Rings Online, where you get part of the game for free (a glorified trial), but akin to Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine Online where the game is free to play but has an item mall. If Guild Wars was a MMORPG it would have no subscription but still cost money to play because you are buying the box/game. This means that Guild Wars would be neither pay-2-play (subscription) or free-2-play (no subscription, no essential cost to play), it would be what is now called buy-2-play (essential cost to play, no subscription to play).
You seem to have done some research but still missed the point in an incredible way. I'm rather blown away by that. Misinformation for the win?
(1)TL:DR must be your way of saying that thinking hurts. Then again, this may explain why it looks like you responded to the post without using your brain.
(2) It's not about community, is it? You just have nothing better to do.
Why people think gw is not mmorpg? over 5 million players in the last 5 years = massive, you can play with up to 8 people in group = multiplayer, it requires internet connection to play = online, and It has the best class system, engaging story, great skill system etc.. = role playing, and its a video game = game. So gw got it all -> M. M. O. RP. G.!
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
It's not massive and multiplayer, it's massively-multiplayer and gw is not it.
Semantics, we don't care about semantics.
This is not a game.
Would that make Counter Strike an MMOFPS?
It has had millions play it during it's shelf life. Massive.
It allows you to play with others. Multiplayer.
It requires an internet connection. Online.
It's an FPS.
M.M.O.F.P.S!
Or...no.
Anet itself calls GW a CORPG. Its amusing to see defenders of Massive MMO worlds and GW fans battle it out. lol
Who could have thought that WOW could bring super power like USA to its knees?
Originally posted by Arcken
To put it in a nutshell, our society is about to hit the fan, grades are dropping, obesity is going up,childhood the USA is going to lose its super power status before too long, but hey, as long as we have a cheap method to babysit our kids, all will be well no?
Im picking on WoW btw because its the beast that made all of this possible
Always read the small print.
When a company calls its own game a CORPG then this what it is. So you all are wrong.
Bite Me
Hmm. I don't recall seeing those two words hyphenated before. Obviously your argument holds no water.
See? Semantic BS is just that.
To me, GW has the best aspects of MMOs while doing away with the worst aspects. It's a world where every corner of it isn't swarming with barely-literate chimpanzees, whooping and screeching underfoot, while you attempt to 'explore' and 'save the kingdom'.
Generally, the worst thing about MMOs tends to be the other people you share the world with. Since the threat of physical volence isn't a deterrant to ignorant and irritating behaviour like it is in the real world, nothing can keep the apes in check. At least when you leave a town in GW, you leave the idiots behind and the world is yours and your companions, to do with what you will -- as it should be. Given that those companions can consist of any of the thousands or tens of thousands of other players online with you at the same time, that more than qualifies as massively multiplayer to me. But maybe it's not massively-multiplayer.
In my opinion, the only time a completely open world is superior to a heavily instanced one like GW, is when it's an FFA PvP game when the whole point of it is act like chimps to one another. In this case, "...gw is not it".
i haven't seen a single person on this site compare it to a F2P game. maybe i'm just not looking hard enough i guess...
The OP should've just put "It's awesome". Had to get all technical.......
We're all Geniuses. Most of us just don't know it.
In a few of the GW2 demo videos, where Eric Flannum is commentating, he actually refers to Guild Wars 1 as an MMO.
So do the community managers...
... You mean a new category like, say, ... Buy To Play? /sarcasm off
Guild Wars seems more like a regular RPG to me being that mobs dont respawn and you customize your skills to perfection(most MMOs you level up get your new skills/skill points and keep spamming them). It reminds me of Diablo 2 where you would create a server , get up to 6/8 players (don't remember) and tear the countryside for loot with your 300% MFlolz. Now if Guild Wars was a persistent world then I would say it is an MMO because when you are out in explorable locations it does not matter what anyone else is doing in Guild Wars.
I'm glad Guild Wars was instanced; no more waiting to kill a certain monster or being asshatted. It is really a structural game.
-I am here to perform logic
I was new to GW and had decided to try out the "Trial" version. Granted it's a trial and I shouldn't expect much.... However when I start playing it automatically gave me an expiration date which was around December 26th of 2010. Instead of enjoying my trial version I was given total of 9 hours of play time. After the 9 hours is up... It was game over in spite of it not being on the expired date. The last hour of gaming time was NOT fun because I was forcfully in a rush to do the quests and etc.
NCSoft should give us a FREE unlimited version of this game. Even know it's $19.95 it still should be free.