Massive: you can draw huge elaborate courses for your sledder to ride down.
Multiplayer: There are millions of people playing it all over the globe.
Online: You actually get to ride on a line!
Role: you get to play the exciting role of a downhill sledder.
Playing: Yep, it has playing.
Game: it is a game.... yay.
now, if we break it down word by word, and loosely define each word, we can say just about anything is an MMO. I think it's important to point out that the first M doesn't stand for massive, but massively, which is an adverb modifying the word multiplayer.
I liked Guild Wars, baught every add-on so i must right? but its for the most part a single player RPG with a touch of instanced pvp. Would be better with raids and a reason for guilds to PVE (other than farming plat).
Yea I know it was going to be a game for the "PVPers" but well lets face it ...pve sells and people like raiding. At any given time there are 5-6 total PvP districts and 100's of PVE.
With the Hard mode pve talk and the pve expansion coming it sounds like their finally going the right direction. Especially with the pve only skills and gear.
Just ordered up this game today actually. Hopefully its as good as it sounds, I am not sure why I never really gave it any interest in recently though. I ordered the first box, hopefully that is enough and I dont need to get the other two to be able to have a good experience.
Linerider... dare I say it. Massive: you can draw huge elaborate courses for your sledder to ride down. Multiplayer: There are millions of people playing it all over the globe. Online: You actually get to ride on a line! Role: you get to play the exciting role of a downhill sledder. Playing: Yep, it has playing. Game: it is a game.... yay. now, if we break it down word by word, and loosely define each word, we can say just about anything is an MMO. I think it's important to point out that the first M doesn't stand for massive, but massively, which is an adverb modifying the word multiplayer.
I thought I made some good points as to why GW has more in common with other MMORPGs than doesn't. If you're primary argument is that GW doesn't offer enough player interaction to be massively multiplayer, let me point out why this isn't true. The game has a large community who often come together for special events such as Fourth of July, Halloween, and Christmas. Perhaps you've never experienced a visit by the Mad King or Emperor Kisu, with everyone in a given town zone all playing mini-games and having a great time. But then how often do you see Ogrimmar or Ironforge filled with thousands of party revelers? Oh wait, the only reason people go to town in WOW is to check the auction house and show off their l33t gear.
I've also found that my GW guild is far more willing to help me with quests and get together than my WOW guild. Is that because my WOW guild sucks? Not at all, the overall quality of members is high in both cases. It's just that in GW you can join up with a buddy who's halfway around the game world in seconds, versus long flight times for WOW players who are on the other continent (or Outland).
Instanced missions actually bring people together for 15-30 minutes at a time from level 5 onwards, whereas in WOW maybe 1-2 people will group to kill a given elite monster and then everyone goes back to solo grinding until they can hit max level and go grind instances.
In other words, despite having a big wide world to play in, a lot of WOW players still spend most of their time in instanced content. And towns in WOW are as much glorified chat rooms and vendor malls as towns in GW. Yet no one is complaining about WOW being a MMORPG. Besides, GW players aren't shunted into game lobby ghettos as many who've never played the game imagine. Theoretically, any GW player can interact with any other GW player, no matter where the two live. Try doing that with your friends in Europe or Asia who want to get together for WOW.
If your argument instead is GW isn't a roleplaying game, then please explain what makes a RPG?
1. level progression? check for GW
2. ability to do new quests and explore new areas? check
3. increased gear as you progress? check
4. creating a unique persona with individualized skills and abilities? check
5. deep immersive roleplaying where you live your character and have torrid cyber romances with a lonely princess who's actually a dude? Ok GW fails in this regard, but then so do most of the more popular MMOGs on the market
There's a lot more community involvement in GW than any web-based FPS like Battlefield 2142 or game with multiplayer functions like Neverwinter NIghts or Diablo 2. That's why I think it deserves the MMO moniker. The game also has many traditional RPG elements that games like Battlefield lack, which is why it deserves to also be called an RPG.
Instant server is a temporary server provided by players.
Permanent server is provided by the company, in which players always return to, to find their permanent character.
Guildwars has a permanent server, which your character will remain saved on for years.
Diablo, no, Battlefield 2142, no, Titans quest, nope.
I seriously doubt any of the naysayers made it into the "Searing" section of the game. Which is like lv 8 and up. Where the main quest unfolds and where you will often sit in town trying to find a group of 8 people to fight as a team to proceed down the next stage. Even outside of this main quest, there are lots of places that people will explore in groups, the world is huge
Linerider... dare I say it. Massive: you can draw huge elaborate courses for your sledder to ride down. Multiplayer: There are millions of people playing it all over the globe. Online: You actually get to ride on a line! Role: you get to play the exciting role of a downhill sledder. Playing: Yep, it has playing. Game: it is a game.... yay. now, if we break it down word by word, and loosely define each word, we can say just about anything is an MMO. I think it's important to point out that the first M doesn't stand for massive, but massively, which is an adverb modifying the word multiplayer.
I thought I made some good points as to why GW has more in common with other MMORPGs than doesn't. If you're primary argument is that GW doesn't offer enough player interaction to be massively multiplayer, let me point out why this isn't true. The game has a large community who often come together for special events such as Fourth of July, Halloween, and Christmas. Perhaps you've never experienced a visit by the Mad King or Emperor Kisu, with everyone in a given town zone all playing mini-games and having a great time. But then how often do you see Ogrimmar or Ironforge filled with thousands of party revelers? Oh wait, the only reason people go to town in WOW is to check the auction house and show off their l33t gear.
I've also found that my GW guild is far more willing to help me with quests and get together than my WOW guild. Is that because my WOW guild sucks? Not at all, the overall quality of members is high in both cases. It's just that in GW you can join up with a buddy who's halfway around the game world in seconds, versus long flight times for WOW players who are on the other continent (or Outland).
Instanced missions actually bring people together for 15-30 minutes at a time from level 5 onwards, whereas in WOW maybe 1-2 people will group to kill a given elite monster and then everyone goes back to solo grinding until they can hit max level and go grind instances.
In other words, despite having a big wide world to play in, a lot of WOW players still spend most of their time in instanced content. And towns in WOW are as much glorified chat rooms and vendor malls as towns in GW. Yet no one is complaining about WOW being a MMORPG. Besides, GW players aren't shunted into game lobby ghettos as many who've never played the game imagine. Theoretically, any GW player can interact with any other GW player, no matter where the two live. Try doing that with your friends in Europe or Asia who want to get together for WOW.
If your argument instead is GW isn't a roleplaying game, then please explain what makes a RPG?
1. level progression? check for GW
2. ability to do new quests and explore new areas? check
3. increased gear as you progress? check
4. creating a unique persona with individualized skills and abilities? check
5. deep immersive roleplaying where you live your character and have torrid cyber romances with a lonely princess who's actually a dude? Ok GW fails in this regard, but then so do most of the more popular MMOGs on the market
There's a lot more community involvement in GW than any web-based FPS like Battlefield 2142 or game with multiplayer functions like Neverwinter NIghts or Diablo 2. That's why I think it deserves the MMO moniker. The game also has many traditional RPG elements that games like Battlefield lack, which is why it deserves to also be called an RPG.
I wasn't really directing my post at you, but rather the hundred people who have posted the acronym MMORPG broken down word by word to explain how guild wars fits the definition.
I don't consider GW to be an MMO, but it is an RPG. Arguing semantics won't change my mind about that. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced, with a group cap that is too low for me to consider it "massively multiplayer"... just multiplayer. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. The towns are just lobbies for forming a group. The game does not have a persistent world, or crafting, housing, mounts... it's pretty bare-bones really.
After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
If you have ever played an MMO, you know why this isn't one. It's a fun game, but the reason it doesn't have a monthly fee is because no one would pay one to play it. I understand that it has similarities to MMOs, but that is because it is an RPG... nothing massively multiplayer about it.
1. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced 2. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. 3. After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
2. Again, that's merely a marketing scheme, trying to throw a new spin in the name to attract people. Doesnt remove it from MMO status.
3. Thats their method of balancing the highend play and the pvp, sort of clever, although not my preferred style. I dont remember you being able to buy skills with real world money. I had to run all round the world and find the people that had them.
They don't have a montly fee because they're not money grubbers like SoE. Which is also why they don't force you to grind for the rest of your human life to reach LEET status and continue to pay them the whole time.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
Instant server is a temporary server provided by players.
Permanent server is provided by the company, in which players always return to, to find their permanent character.
Guildwars has a permanent server, which your character will remain saved on for years.
Diablo, no, Battlefield 2142, no, Titans quest, nope.
I seriously doubt any of the naysayers made it into the "Searing" section of the game. Which is like lv 8 and up. Where the main quest unfolds and where you will often sit in town trying to find a group of 8 people to fight as a team to proceed down the next stage. Even outside of this main quest, there are lots of places that people will explore in groups, the world is huge
The ONLY difference between Guildwars and Diablo 2 was the lobby: Guildwars has a graphical Lobby, Diablo 2 doesnt. (Well, that and Diablo 2 was a better game and sold over 15 million copies)
Diablo 2 saves your character just like Guildwars. What? Did you think you had to start at level 0 every time you connected? Ever heard of an "account" I don't think you even really know much about Diablo 2.
Arena.net developors are all ex-blizzard employees. It's no wonder Guildwars and Diablo2 are both the same type of game, 8 man instanced. CCORP or whatever arena.net wants to call it. It's not the first, Diablo 2 was.
1. The ONLY difference between Guildwars and Diablo 2 was the lobby: Guildwars has a graphical Lobby, Diablo 2 doesnt. (Well, that and Diablo 2 was a better game and sold over 15 million copies)
2. Diablo 2 saves your character just like Guildwars. What? Did you think you had to start at level 0 every time you connected? Ever heard of an "account" I don't think you even really know much about Diablo 2.
1. And the permanent server, hosted and paid for by the company that made the game.
2. You're still hosting the server. I didnt say you had to start over. I beat Diablo 2, stopped playing it 5 years ago like most sane people. Actually the last I remember nerding it up over a lan party was 7 years ago in highschool.
The world in GW is a lot more expansive than simply going from A to B, which is how D2 is in general. Players have infinitely more freedom to roam thru the many zones that make up GW. Your average game of online D2 is the same as the offline mode, where you follow thru the quest from A-B, with 1 or 2 friends that you know in person.
Guild wars, Permanent Character, Permanent Server, like every MMO on the planet.
Diablo 2, Permanent Character, Temporary Server, like no MMO on the planet.
1. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced 2. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. 3. After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
ever since the genre first started. MMORPG's means thousands of players in a persistent world. GW's world is not persistent, the world resets as soon as you exit a map and go to town.
2. Again, that's merely a marketing scheme, trying to throw a new spin in the name to attract people. Doesnt remove it from MMO status.
3. Thats their method of balancing the highend play and the pvp, sort of clever, although not my preferred style. I dont remember you being able to buy skills with real world money. I had to run all round the world and find the people that had them.
They don't have a montly fee because they're not money grubbers like SoE. Which is also why they don't force you to grind for the rest of your human life to reach LEET status and continue to pay them the whole time.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Because it does fit the criteria on this site.
"
It must be graphical...so no text based MUDs.
Persistent characters.
Some form of character advancement.
It must use a true client/server connection. In other words, no HTML or "web" based games. Games that run in a browser using Java are OK.
Five or more screenshots from inside of the game engine itself.
A professional web site free of annoying pop-up ads or Spyware programs and access to some kind of support system.
Must fully support English. This means the client interface, in-game chat, help system and support website must all be in English."
As you can see, a persistent world, an important part that makes an MMO an MMO, is not a requirement on mmorpg.com.
This site also lists game as Gunz online, and I think very few people would argue Gunz is an mmorpg, so saying its on this site is not really a good arguement. Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO. MMORPG is a genre where a massive amount of people interact with each other in a persistent world.
1. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced 2. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. 3. After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
ever since the genre first started. MMORPG's means thousands of players in a persistent world. GW's world is not persistent, the world resets as soon as you exit a map and go to town.
Instances first spawned in MMO's.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Because it does fit the criteria on this site.
"
It must be graphical...so no text based MUDs.
Persistent characters.
Some form of character advancement.
It must use a true client/server connection. In other words, no HTML or "web" based games. Games that run in a browser using Java are OK.
Five or more screenshots from inside of the game engine itself.
A professional web site free of annoying pop-up ads or Spyware programs and access to some kind of support system.
Must fully support English. This means the client interface, in-game chat, help system and support website must all be in English."
As you can see, a persistent world, an important part that makes an MMO an MMO, is not a requirement on mmorpg.com.
This site also lists game as Gunz online, and I think very few people would argue Gunz is an mmorpg, so saying its on this site is not really a good arguement.
Although I somewhat agree with you, I don't see a persistant world as a requirement, like this website.
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
MMORPG is a genre where a massive amount of people interact with each other in a persistent world.
99% of player interaction outside of towns in your typical MMO is in a group 6-8 players large. The frequency of full groups in GW, per person easily out matches other MMOs.
ding dong
Really the only valid point I've seen in this thread has to do with the persistance of a game's world. How much of a game has to be permanently shared by players? One of the biggest complaints in Everquest 1 had to do with certain areas being camp and having to look for lesser sustaining grindables. An entirely instanced world removes this problem, whilst allowing you to group with anyone on the server to do so. Is it completely necessary for Eastern Commonlands to be chock full of noobs shouting to each other, while you run thru to hunt in Kithkor? Sure, I actually do prefer a completely persistent world, and I am not fond of instances found in WoW or EQ2. I don't see it changes the status of the game while in those examples.
I hope AoC doesnt have instances. But beyond preference there is really no difference in the overall presentation of a land explored by you and your group, except that noone is camping your spot now.
Originally posted by GameloaOriginally posted by Nemesai
Originally posted by Salvatoris
1. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced 2. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. 3. After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
ever since the genre first started. MMORPG's means thousands of players in a persistent world. GW's world is not persistent, the world resets as soon as you exit a map and go to town.
Instances first spawned in MMO's.
Thats true, But it was only set for certain area's. However in Guild Wars, the entire world is set in instances.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Because it does fit the criteria on this site.
"
It must be graphical...so no text based MUDs.
Persistent characters.
Some form of character advancement.
It must use a true client/server connection. In other words, no HTML or "web" based games. Games that run in a browser using Java are OK.
Five or more screenshots from inside of the game engine itself.
A professional web site free of annoying pop-up ads or Spyware programs and access to some kind of support system.
Must fully support English. This means the client interface, in-game chat, help system and support website must all be in English."
As you can see, a persistent world, an important part that makes an MMO an MMO, is not a requirement on mmorpg.com.
This site also lists game as Gunz online, and I think very few people would argue Gunz is an mmorpg, so saying its on this site is not really a good arguement.
Although I somewhat agree with you, I don't see a persistant world as a requirement, like this website.
But then how is the MMORPG genre any diffrent from games like Counterstrike or Rakion when a persistent world is not a requirement.
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
MMORPG is a genre where a massive amount of people interact with each other in a persistent world.
99% of player interaction outside of towns in your typical MMO is in a group 6-8 players large. The frequency of full groups in GW, per person easily out matches other MMOs.
That isn't the point. when you kill a mob in say, World of Warcraft, then that mob is gone. nobody can kill it it anymore (untill it respawns ofcourse). your interacting with other players. in GW, this is not the case. if you kill a mob, your not interacting with anyone but your self and your own group.
ding dong
Really the only valid point I've seen in this thread has to do with the persistance of a game's world. How much of a game has to be permanently shared by players? One of the biggest complaints in Everquest 1 had to do with certain areas being camp and having to look for lesser sustaining grindables. An entirely instanced world removes this problem, whilst allowing you to group with anyone on the server to do so. Is it completely necessary for Eastern Commonlands to be chock full of noobs shouting to each other, while you run thru to hunt in Kithkor? Sure, I actually do prefer a completely persistent world, and I am not fond of instances found in WoW or EQ2. I don't see it changes the status of the game while in those example.
Games like WoW and EQ2 still offer a fully open world to explore, which is not the case in GW.
I hope AoC doesnt have instances. But beyond preference there is really no difference in the overall presentation of a land explored by you and your group, except that noone is camping your spot now.
Nobody is denying GW's gameplay is very similar to an mmorpg experience, that is why it confuses so many people.
But if you really look at the game, you see there is nothing massively about it.
The MMO genre differs from Counterstrike in that it is a Permanent server (provided by game maker) with a Permanent Character stored on it.
The reason instances were developed is so that players arent fighting over mobs, this alone isnt a reason to dequalify the game.
EQ, WoW, and GW all have fully open worlds for the player to explore. I dont know how you'd think GW didnt? (honest ?)
Massively multiplayer can be just as easily applied to Battlefield 2142 where 64 players are interacting, whereas the biggest raid I've ever been on was 30~. MMO's just don't get as big or interactive as people think the name implies.
i think of GW as a mmo, its massive muliplayer online rpg. Its massive in huge GW is a huge game, Its multiplayer its online and its a role playing game. Its a mmo.
it Guild wars is an mmorpg then we are going to start calling diablo 2 an mmorpg. guild wars and diablo 2 have more in common then it does with mmorpgs.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
i think of GW as a mmo, its massive muliplayer online rpg. Its massive in huge GW is a huge game, Its multiplayer its online and its a role playing game. Its a mmo.
it Guild wars is an mmorpg then we are going to start calling diablo 2 an mmorpg. guild wars and diablo 2 have more in common then it does with mmorpgs.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
New rule. Read the rest of a thread before posting. You're argument has been destroyed, I wont do it again.
i think of GW as a mmo, its massive muliplayer online rpg. Its massive in huge GW is a huge game, Its multiplayer its online and its a role playing game. Its a mmo.
it Guild wars is an mmorpg then we are going to start calling diablo 2 an mmorpg. guild wars and diablo 2 have more in common then it does with mmorpgs.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
New rule. Read the rest of a thread before posting. You're argument has been destroyed, I wont do it again.
Hmm the quote is getting too huge. Umm *reads back*
The MMO genre differs from Counterstrike in that it is a Permanent server (provided by game maker) with a Permanent Character stored on it.
The reason instances were developed is so that players arent fighting over mobs, this alone isnt a reason to dequalify the game.
EQ, WoW, and GW all have fully open worlds for the player to explore. I dont know how you'd think GW didnt? (honest ?)
Massively multiplayer can be just as easily applied to Battlefield 2142 where 64 players are interacting, whereas the biggest raid I've ever been on was 30~. MMO's just don't get as big or interactive as people think the name implies.
By your definition, we can basicly have ANY online game being an mmorpg as long as it has a server hosted by the game maker. I also fail to see why it has to be the game maker? It shouldnt matter who hosts the game. Lineage 2 and Ragnarok Online have tons of private servers with thousands of people playing on it, but those servers are not hosted by the creators so those are not mmorpg's?
Instancing is a perfect reason to dequalify a game as an mmorpg, because you are taking away the most important part, the massively part. you are no longer interacting with anybody besides your party.
Also, Gw does not have an open world. If a party of 8 goes into an instance (which is the ENTIRE GAME WORLD) can I join them? No i can't. its not open.
By your definition, we might as well consider every online game an mmo.
But then what should we call games like WoW and EQ? EMMMORPG? Even More massively multiplayer online roleplaying game?
While Guildwars doesnt have all the features of a traditional mmo it does have others which even the score in my eyes.
The important of these being that anyone from any part of the world can play with anyone else on the same server. Now thats massive no matter how you look at it. WoW servers are tiny comparison 3500 people on a mere server? With Guildwars you have the entire population of the whole game at your fingertips, no language or region borders = MASSIVE.
And so what if you can only take 7 other guys with you into the various zones and instances. You can only take 4 other guys into most of the instances in WoW.
While Guildwars doesnt have all the features of a traditional mmo it does have others which even the score in my eyes.
The important of these being that anyone from any part of the world can play with anyone else on the same server. Now thats massive no matter how you look at it. WoW servers are tiny comparison 3500 people on a mere server? With Guildwars you have the entire population of the whole game at your fingertips, no language or region borders = MASSIVE.
And so what if you can only take 7 other guys with you into the various zones and instances. You can only take 4 other guys into most of the instances in WoW.
Thats Massively in the wrong way? its the actual experience that should matter. If all Counterstrike servers were hosted by Valve, would that mean Counterstrike is an MMOFPS? ofcourse not.
Yes you can only take 4 others into an instance in WoW, but thats a poor arguement. Instances are only a very small part of WoW, in GW, its the entire game.
Who cares what these games are tagged as? I play DDO very happily which some people say is not an MMO in the sense that they perceive. Does it lessen my experience? No, of course not! I couldn't give a fuck if they called it a FPS, RTS or Driving game.
I don't think you can ever label anything as the best. I could say here and now that DDO is the best 'mmo' but I would immediately be challenged by the next person to post who would then say the game they play is the best and another challenge will come, it's ever decreasing circles.
It's like saying 'strawberry' is the best flavour in the world. It might be for you of course.
There is too much emphasis on what is the best etc. Find a game you like and play it, simple, don't worry about what other people on a website like this are playing.
You must not leave until you free Arlos and have gathered your party safely in this hallway.
Comments
Guild Wars is a CCORPG.
Guild Wars is the only CCORPG.
Guild Wars is the best CCORPG!!!!!!
Awsome conclusion!!! Now plz all the fan-boys, GW-haters and random idiots plz go back to your caves!
Linerider... dare I say it.
Massive: you can draw huge elaborate courses for your sledder to ride down.
Multiplayer: There are millions of people playing it all over the globe.
Online: You actually get to ride on a line!
Role: you get to play the exciting role of a downhill sledder.
Playing: Yep, it has playing.
Game: it is a game.... yay.
now, if we break it down word by word, and loosely define each word, we can say just about anything is an MMO. I think it's important to point out that the first M doesn't stand for massive, but massively, which is an adverb modifying the word multiplayer.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
Yea I know it was going to be a game for the "PVPers" but well lets face it ...pve sells and people like raiding. At any given time there are 5-6 total PvP districts and 100's of PVE.
With the Hard mode pve talk and the pve expansion coming it sounds like their finally going the right direction. Especially with the pve only skills and gear.
I thought I made some good points as to why GW has more in common with other MMORPGs than doesn't. If you're primary argument is that GW doesn't offer enough player interaction to be massively multiplayer, let me point out why this isn't true. The game has a large community who often come together for special events such as Fourth of July, Halloween, and Christmas. Perhaps you've never experienced a visit by the Mad King or Emperor Kisu, with everyone in a given town zone all playing mini-games and having a great time. But then how often do you see Ogrimmar or Ironforge filled with thousands of party revelers? Oh wait, the only reason people go to town in WOW is to check the auction house and show off their l33t gear.
I've also found that my GW guild is far more willing to help me with quests and get together than my WOW guild. Is that because my WOW guild sucks? Not at all, the overall quality of members is high in both cases. It's just that in GW you can join up with a buddy who's halfway around the game world in seconds, versus long flight times for WOW players who are on the other continent (or Outland).
Instanced missions actually bring people together for 15-30 minutes at a time from level 5 onwards, whereas in WOW maybe 1-2 people will group to kill a given elite monster and then everyone goes back to solo grinding until they can hit max level and go grind instances.
In other words, despite having a big wide world to play in, a lot of WOW players still spend most of their time in instanced content. And towns in WOW are as much glorified chat rooms and vendor malls as towns in GW. Yet no one is complaining about WOW being a MMORPG. Besides, GW players aren't shunted into game lobby ghettos as many who've never played the game imagine. Theoretically, any GW player can interact with any other GW player, no matter where the two live. Try doing that with your friends in Europe or Asia who want to get together for WOW.
If your argument instead is GW isn't a roleplaying game, then please explain what makes a RPG?
1. level progression? check for GW
2. ability to do new quests and explore new areas? check
3. increased gear as you progress? check
4. creating a unique persona with individualized skills and abilities? check
5. deep immersive roleplaying where you live your character and have torrid cyber romances with a lonely princess who's actually a dude? Ok GW fails in this regard, but then so do most of the more popular MMOGs on the market
There's a lot more community involvement in GW than any web-based FPS like Battlefield 2142 or game with multiplayer functions like Neverwinter NIghts or Diablo 2. That's why I think it deserves the MMO moniker. The game also has many traditional RPG elements that games like Battlefield lack, which is why it deserves to also be called an RPG.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Permanent Charcter, Instant server
Instant server is a temporary server provided by players.
Permanent server is provided by the company, in which players always return to, to find their permanent character.
Guildwars has a permanent server, which your character will remain saved on for years.
Diablo, no, Battlefield 2142, no, Titans quest, nope.
I seriously doubt any of the naysayers made it into the "Searing" section of the game. Which is like lv 8 and up. Where the main quest unfolds and where you will often sit in town trying to find a group of 8 people to fight as a team to proceed down the next stage. Even outside of this main quest, there are lots of places that people will explore in groups, the world is huge
I thought I made some good points as to why GW has more in common with other MMORPGs than doesn't. If you're primary argument is that GW doesn't offer enough player interaction to be massively multiplayer, let me point out why this isn't true. The game has a large community who often come together for special events such as Fourth of July, Halloween, and Christmas. Perhaps you've never experienced a visit by the Mad King or Emperor Kisu, with everyone in a given town zone all playing mini-games and having a great time. But then how often do you see Ogrimmar or Ironforge filled with thousands of party revelers? Oh wait, the only reason people go to town in WOW is to check the auction house and show off their l33t gear.
I've also found that my GW guild is far more willing to help me with quests and get together than my WOW guild. Is that because my WOW guild sucks? Not at all, the overall quality of members is high in both cases. It's just that in GW you can join up with a buddy who's halfway around the game world in seconds, versus long flight times for WOW players who are on the other continent (or Outland).
Instanced missions actually bring people together for 15-30 minutes at a time from level 5 onwards, whereas in WOW maybe 1-2 people will group to kill a given elite monster and then everyone goes back to solo grinding until they can hit max level and go grind instances.
In other words, despite having a big wide world to play in, a lot of WOW players still spend most of their time in instanced content. And towns in WOW are as much glorified chat rooms and vendor malls as towns in GW. Yet no one is complaining about WOW being a MMORPG. Besides, GW players aren't shunted into game lobby ghettos as many who've never played the game imagine. Theoretically, any GW player can interact with any other GW player, no matter where the two live. Try doing that with your friends in Europe or Asia who want to get together for WOW.
If your argument instead is GW isn't a roleplaying game, then please explain what makes a RPG?
1. level progression? check for GW
2. ability to do new quests and explore new areas? check
3. increased gear as you progress? check
4. creating a unique persona with individualized skills and abilities? check
5. deep immersive roleplaying where you live your character and have torrid cyber romances with a lonely princess who's actually a dude? Ok GW fails in this regard, but then so do most of the more popular MMOGs on the market
There's a lot more community involvement in GW than any web-based FPS like Battlefield 2142 or game with multiplayer functions like Neverwinter NIghts or Diablo 2. That's why I think it deserves the MMO moniker. The game also has many traditional RPG elements that games like Battlefield lack, which is why it deserves to also be called an RPG.
I wasn't really directing my post at you, but rather the hundred people who have posted the acronym MMORPG broken down word by word to explain how guild wars fits the definition.
I don't consider GW to be an MMO, but it is an RPG. Arguing semantics won't change my mind about that. The main reason I don't consider GW to be an MMO is that it is entirely instanced, with a group cap that is too low for me to consider it "massively multiplayer"... just multiplayer. It is a cooperative online RPG, just like the developers say it is. The towns are just lobbies for forming a group. The game does not have a persistent world, or crafting, housing, mounts... it's pretty bare-bones really.
After about two weeks, Guild Wars is game about all characters and gear being equal and having PvP matches in an arena setting. It takes very little time to reach max level in the game, have the best weapon for your class and roll through every bit of content. For a few bucks you can even buy all your skills for use in PvP.
If you have ever played an MMO, you know why this isn't one. It's a fun game, but the reason it doesn't have a monthly fee is because no one would pay one to play it. I understand that it has similarities to MMOs, but that is because it is an RPG... nothing massively multiplayer about it.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
2. Again, that's merely a marketing scheme, trying to throw a new spin in the name to attract people. Doesnt remove it from MMO status.
3. Thats their method of balancing the highend play and the pvp, sort of clever, although not my preferred style. I dont remember you being able to buy skills with real world money. I had to run all round the world and find the people that had them.
They don't have a montly fee because they're not money grubbers like SoE. Which is also why they don't force you to grind for the rest of your human life to reach LEET status and continue to pay them the whole time.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
RPG is a role play game...
gw has no persistend world..is another thing
Permanent Charcter, Instant server
Instant server is a temporary server provided by players.
Permanent server is provided by the company, in which players always return to, to find their permanent character.
Guildwars has a permanent server, which your character will remain saved on for years.
Diablo, no, Battlefield 2142, no, Titans quest, nope.
I seriously doubt any of the naysayers made it into the "Searing" section of the game. Which is like lv 8 and up. Where the main quest unfolds and where you will often sit in town trying to find a group of 8 people to fight as a team to proceed down the next stage. Even outside of this main quest, there are lots of places that people will explore in groups, the world is huge
The ONLY difference between Guildwars and Diablo 2 was the lobby: Guildwars has a graphical Lobby, Diablo 2 doesnt. (Well, that and Diablo 2 was a better game and sold over 15 million copies)
Diablo 2 saves your character just like Guildwars. What? Did you think you had to start at level 0 every time you connected? Ever heard of an "account" I don't think you even really know much about Diablo 2.
Arena.net developors are all ex-blizzard employees. It's no wonder Guildwars and Diablo2 are both the same type of game, 8 man instanced. CCORP or whatever arena.net wants to call it. It's not the first, Diablo 2 was.
1. And the permanent server, hosted and paid for by the company that made the game.
2. You're still hosting the server. I didnt say you had to start over. I beat Diablo 2, stopped playing it 5 years ago like most sane people. Actually the last I remember nerding it up over a lan party was 7 years ago in highschool.
The world in GW is a lot more expansive than simply going from A to B, which is how D2 is in general. Players have infinitely more freedom to roam thru the many zones that make up GW. Your average game of online D2 is the same as the offline mode, where you follow thru the quest from A-B, with 1 or 2 friends that you know in person.
Guild wars, Permanent Character, Permanent Server, like every MMO on the planet.
Diablo 2, Permanent Character, Temporary Server, like no MMO on the planet.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
ever since the genre first started. MMORPG's means thousands of players in a persistent world. GW's world is not persistent, the world resets as soon as you exit a map and go to town.
2. Again, that's merely a marketing scheme, trying to throw a new spin in the name to attract people. Doesnt remove it from MMO status.
3. Thats their method of balancing the highend play and the pvp, sort of clever, although not my preferred style. I dont remember you being able to buy skills with real world money. I had to run all round the world and find the people that had them.
They don't have a montly fee because they're not money grubbers like SoE. Which is also why they don't force you to grind for the rest of your human life to reach LEET status and continue to pay them the whole time.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Because it does fit the criteria on this site.
"
- It must be graphical...so no text based MUDs.
- Persistent characters.
- Some form of character advancement.
- It must use a true client/server connection. In other words, no HTML or "web" based games. Games that run in a browser using Java are OK.
- Five or more screenshots from inside of the game engine itself.
- A professional web site free of annoying pop-up ads or Spyware programs and access to some kind of support system.
- Must fully support English. This means the client interface, in-game chat, help system and support website must all be in English."
http://www.mmorpg.com/faq.cfm/showFaq/4As you can see, a persistent world, an important part that makes an MMO an MMO, is not a requirement on mmorpg.com.
This site also lists game as Gunz online, and I think very few people would argue Gunz is an mmorpg, so saying its on this site is not really a good arguement.
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
MMORPG is a genre where a massive amount of people interact with each other in a persistent world.
Really the only valid point I've seen in this thread has to do with the persistance of a game's world. How much of a game has to be permanently shared by players? One of the biggest complaints in Everquest 1 had to do with certain areas being camp and having to look for lesser sustaining grindables. An entirely instanced world removes this problem, whilst allowing you to group with anyone on the server to do so. Is it completely necessary for Eastern Commonlands to be chock full of noobs shouting to each other, while you run thru to hunt in Kithkor? Sure, I actually do prefer a completely persistent world, and I am not fond of instances found in WoW or EQ2. I don't see it changes the status of the game while in those examples.
I hope AoC doesnt have instances. But beyond preference there is really no difference in the overall presentation of a land explored by you and your group, except that noone is camping your spot now.
1. Since when is that a criteria for a MMO?
ever since the genre first started. MMORPG's means thousands of players in a persistent world. GW's world is not persistent, the world resets as soon as you exit a map and go to town.
Instances first spawned in MMO's.
Thats true, But it was only set for certain area's. However in Guild Wars, the entire world is set in instances.
If its not an MMO, why is it on this site?
Because it does fit the criteria on this site.
"
http://www.mmorpg.com/faq.cfm/showFaq/4
As you can see, a persistent world, an important part that makes an MMO an MMO, is not a requirement on mmorpg.com.
This site also lists game as Gunz online, and I think very few people would argue Gunz is an mmorpg, so saying its on this site is not really a good arguement.
Although I somewhat agree with you, I don't see a persistant world as a requirement, like this website.
But then how is the MMORPG genre any diffrent from games like Counterstrike or Rakion when a persistent world is not a requirement.
Someone, anyone, define clear parameters of an MMO.
MMORPG is a genre where a massive amount of people interact with each other in a persistent world.
99% of player interaction outside of towns in your typical MMO is in a group 6-8 players large. The frequency of full groups in GW, per person easily out matches other MMOs.
That isn't the point. when you kill a mob in say, World of Warcraft, then that mob is gone. nobody can kill it it anymore (untill it respawns ofcourse). your interacting with other players. in GW, this is not the case. if you kill a mob, your not interacting with anyone but your self and your own group.
ding dongReally the only valid point I've seen in this thread has to do with the persistance of a game's world. How much of a game has to be permanently shared by players? One of the biggest complaints in Everquest 1 had to do with certain areas being camp and having to look for lesser sustaining grindables. An entirely instanced world removes this problem, whilst allowing you to group with anyone on the server to do so. Is it completely necessary for Eastern Commonlands to be chock full of noobs shouting to each other, while you run thru to hunt in Kithkor? Sure, I actually do prefer a completely persistent world, and I am not fond of instances found in WoW or EQ2. I don't see it changes the status of the game while in those example.
Games like WoW and EQ2 still offer a fully open world to explore, which is not the case in GW.
I hope AoC doesnt have instances. But beyond preference there is really no difference in the overall presentation of a land explored by you and your group, except that noone is camping your spot now.
Nobody is denying GW's gameplay is very similar to an mmorpg experience, that is why it confuses so many people.
But if you really look at the game, you see there is nothing massively about it.
Hmm the quote is getting too huge.
Umm *reads back*
The MMO genre differs from Counterstrike in that it is a Permanent server (provided by game maker) with a Permanent Character stored on it.
The reason instances were developed is so that players arent fighting over mobs, this alone isnt a reason to dequalify the game.
EQ, WoW, and GW all have fully open worlds for the player to explore. I dont know how you'd think GW didnt? (honest ?)
Massively multiplayer can be just as easily applied to Battlefield 2142 where 64 players are interacting, whereas the biggest raid I've ever been on was 30~. MMO's just don't get as big or interactive as people think the name implies.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
New rule. Read the rest of a thread before posting. You're argument has been destroyed, I wont do it again.
for one you can only have so many people battleing at one time. you might say o there is so many people in the city. and yes there are but you can compair that with the battle.net chat rooms they have for diablo 2 except its all dolled up and looks cool.
New rule. Read the rest of a thread before posting. You're argument has been destroyed, I wont do it again.
wow how cool a forum nazi
Instancing is a perfect reason to dequalify a game as an mmorpg, because you are taking away the most important part, the massively part. you are no longer interacting with anybody besides your party.
Also, Gw does not have an open world. If a party of 8 goes into an instance (which is the ENTIRE GAME WORLD) can I join them? No i can't. its not open.
By your definition, we might as well consider every online game an mmo.
But then what should we call games like WoW and EQ? EMMMORPG? Even More massively multiplayer online roleplaying game?
The important of these being that anyone from any part of the world can play with anyone else on the same server. Now thats massive no matter how you look at it. WoW servers are tiny comparison 3500 people on a mere server? With Guildwars you have the entire population of the whole game at your fingertips, no language or region borders = MASSIVE.
And so what if you can only take 7 other guys with you into the various zones and instances. You can only take 4 other guys into most of the instances in WoW.
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
Yes you can only take 4 others into an instance in WoW, but thats a poor arguement. Instances are only a very small part of WoW, in GW, its the entire game.
I don't think you can ever label anything as the best. I could say here and now that DDO is the best 'mmo' but I would immediately be challenged by the next person to post who would then say the game they play is the best and another challenge will come, it's ever decreasing circles.
It's like saying 'strawberry' is the best flavour in the world. It might be for you of course.
There is too much emphasis on what is the best etc. Find a game you like and play it, simple, don't worry about what other people on a website like this are playing.
You must not leave until you free Arlos and have gathered your party safely in this hallway.