Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMO OR NO ?!?!
t_blair
Member Posts: 4
in Guild Wars
Something else I have noticed today while looking through this site is the debate concerning whether or not Guild Wars is a MMORPG. (This has popped up time and again in the Hype-Meter also) This debate has become a subject of many websites and posts. I don't want to start another argument like I have read many times when this subject comes up!
Instead, I would like you to take my silly little poll. If you want, leave a post of why you think the way you do. What is a MMORPG to you and do you consider guild wars to be one? And please respectful to others opinions. Thanks.
Comments
In the ways that matter: yes
In the ways most of us are glad to be rid of: no
The Obsidian Kings
I vote no, but its like somewhat in between. The whole game isnt MMORPG, MMORPG games are more like, a lot of people gather, they go hunting, they go exping, they buy stuff together, like that, you play together with everyone all the time, were ever you go, you meet someone. GW is a bit diffrent, your not always together, you can go to the solo area if you want to hunt alone, and the missions are 4 player based, also some are 8 player based. Same with PvP, it has a player limit, which MMORPGs doesnt have. Thats the diffrence.
SO THAT'S WHY THE GAME HAS NO MONTHLY FEE!!!
I knew there had to be a catch somewhere. No way a company could manage to release a true MMORPG and not have any monthly fee.
I'm not saying the game will suck, in 1 day I'll see that for myself. But now I see the catch... so there's no huge 30 players VS 30 players wars or castle sieges.
Aw well... I guess we can't have everything.
___________ ___ __ _ _ _
Stealth - Ambush - Hemorrhage - Sinister Strike x2 - Cold Blood - Eviscerate - Vanish - Preparation - Cold Blood - Ambush - ... you're dead! :P
FYI, they can, have, and will have senarios with fairly large numbers of people together. In E3, the example of this was the Tombs tourny, which was at least 8v8v8v8. That was total mayhem, and you have to really be on your game to survive that. Only 8-player teams? So ..WoW has only 5 people to a team last I heard, but they can form "super groups". There has been talk of doing this in GW as well. There is no set-in-stone limit to what they're capable of, it's just a matter of what they feel is most practical for a given situation. Also, what you call a "catch", many of use consider a benefit.
Yes, it means "less". Less griefing, less lag, no PKs, no competing against farm-bots for kills, and so on. What about the "immersion" of having all the other people around? First off: much over-rated; more drawbacks than benefits. It's also inaccurate to say you're "playing" with all those people. No, you're playing with a handful at most, and putting up with the rest, to farm endlessly and do quests that never really mean anything and could be done by a retarded monkey anyway. When I played GW during E3, I wasn't farming items, nor did it even feel like "leveling". It was just so fun, challenging, and involving, that the other stuff was only an afterthought.
If I want to see massive numbers of people I don't know or care for, I'll go to a town or outpost, where there are PLENTY. More people active there, I would argue, than a "true" mmo. Mmo = a couple dozen people sitting around doing NOTHING, usually automated bots, with only a few actual people doing anything. GW = hundreds of people everywhere, always doing something. Yet, ironically, people call GW towns a "glorified chatroom". What a load of hypocritcal BS that always is.
GW E3 already had many of our jaws dropping in awe, already more polished and of higher quality than most of the post-retail crap. And that was only a fraction of we'll see on halloween.
The Obsidian Kings
Somtimes, dicussions like this amuse me..
I've read a dozen of discussions regarding this subject, but I think Areanet has got the final word:
From the official FAQ:
What kind of game is Guild Wars?
So, it is not a MMORPG, but a CORPG..!
The problem why others don't consider it as MMORPG is because there are areas where the 'instance' system was used incorrectly.
For example, the maps accessible by going outside of a town. These maps are huge and I refer to them as world areas. These 'world areas' must be non-instanced as these are big areas of the game wherein you don't have any mission or quests to do. You are there to explore, gather items, level-up.
If they will not change these areas, then this isn't an MMORPG at all but rather a MOG only.
Instance-worlds should be used only on missions/quests just like how DG developed TR.
Better, what they should do is offer the players a choice if they want an 'instanced-world area' or not. If the player chose a non-instanced-world area, then s/he has no rights whatsoever to say KSer, looter, and all those n00b terminologies as the player has the option to choose an instanced-world area.
I didn't bought GW to play a single-player MMOG (if we can call it as such). CORPG it is, that is for Quests/Missions. World Areas shouldn't be 'instanced' or at least give us the option to choose. Missions 'must' be instanced, that's why they referred to it as CORPG.
They should just do what Richard Garriott did with TR
-----------------
http://Holy-Order.org (Holy Order of the Light)
http://PhilGaming.Com (Philippine Gaming Community)
http://Laibcoms.com/forums/