Guild Wars 2

When people express the wish that Guild Wars 2 was more like its predecessor, particularly in the context of “vertical gear progression”, a (frustratingly) recurring retort has been: “Guild Wars is not an MMO.”

It’s generally refuted—I’ve tackled it a few times myself—but it keeps coming up. So let’s counter the assertion in detail:

MMOs have fundamental defining criteria:
- Hosted, online
- Persistent world
- Large number of concurrent users (thousands or more)

Does Guild Wars meet all this criteria? Yes, it does. Admittedly, the title is, by design, weakest on the second point, but that attribute is still there, also by design.

Additionally, the website for the title actually describes the game as an MMO that avoids “some of the more tedious aspects” of the genre. Also from the website (emphasis mine):

“Like existing MMOs, Guild Wars is played entirely online in a secure hosted environment. Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world. Players can meet new friends in gathering places like towns and outposts where they form parties and go questing with them.”

Please note that the aforementioned qualifying elements of an MMO are all mentioned in that quote. Please also note that if the game was not recognized as an MMO by those who designed it, language such as “like existing MMOs” wouldn’t have been incorporated into their product descriptions. Clearly, they were targeting an MMO audience.

Furthermore, the industry and culture that surround gaming have designated it as an MMO (and an MMORPG). Any basic web search will reveal this. Simply enter “Guild Wars” and “MMO” into your engine of choice. Dig further, and you’ll also find that game journalists have routinely referred to it as an MMO (and an MMORPG). Quotes from those journalists calling it such can actually be found on the title’s website.

And then there’s the point of who made the game, where they had come from, and why they set out on their own to begin with.

Now, you might retort, “but Guild Wars is called a CORPG!”

Yes. But who called it that? The industry? No. Players? No. Journalists? No. So where did that label come from?

Guild Wars was marketed as a Cooperative Online Roleplaying Game by the studio that produced it. This was a marketing strategy employed to distance and distinguish the title from many of the recurring conventions of the MMORPG subgrenre.

The subgrenre. Not from MMOs in general. MMOs and MMORPGs are not the same thing.

“CORPG” is not a separate genre, because one title does not a genre make. “CORPG” appears nowhere relevant outside of the title’s marketing language (do another web search). “CORPG”, in the larger context of gaming industry and culture, is meaningless.

But even if it were a recognized genre, it would be a counted as a subgenre of the MMO category.

Conclusion: Guild Wars is an MMO.

Thanks for reading.

what they mean is guild wars is not a persistent world which most mmos are. At least that is how I take it and yes its a big difference.

Not sure why this makes players so angry, it’s a simple formula. I’ll just rehash my last discussion about this to save time.

It’s massive. It’s multiplayer. But it’s not massively multiplayer. By your own definition it’s not an mmo because it’s not a persistent world. Persistent, in a game context, means the game world persists after you log off. gw1 doesn’t do that because there’s no need to…it’s only you and your party in the zone.

Besides, that little “ly” at the end of massive may make it look like an adverb, but it’s really an adjective describing “multiplayer.” And if something is massively multiplayer, then it has hundreds of people inhabiting the same world at the same time.

Now if you want to point to the towns in gw1 as your evidence, well that is your prerogative. I doubt any gamer worth his weight in Doritoes would count 1% of the game, and a non-combat part at that, as evidence for this.

Not sure why this keeps coming up. I mean, I left gw1 because I wanted to play an mmo.

True story: I typed in “coorpg” in my search engine and the first hit was an article about how gw1 isn’t an mmo. Typing in “guild wars mmo” just gave a ton of stuff on this game. :/

Ditton.3149:

what they mean is guild wars is not a persistent world which most mmos are.

This was addressed in the initial post.

There are indeed persistent environments within the virtual space of the game. Hence, the language, “Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world.” These areas exist independent of user interaction, can change whether a user logs in or not (events, for example). Yes, this space is comparatively small, but it’s there and it is shared. It doesn’t need to be of a certain scope to qualify.

Yes MMO – Single player MMO

PVE part in this game does not encourage grouping, do not reward for grouping do not provide tools for finding a group and punish specialized playstyle or support playstyle. Game mechanics and classes as it is right now, makes players to be selfish and force us to be self sufficient. There is no place for supporters. you can’t just buff, heal , and spread boons to your party because you need to focus to tag all mobs in rage and compete with other players or else you will not score a kill for your event and get no loot.

Obsidian.1328:

I doubt any gamer worth his weight in Doritoes would count 1% of the game, and a non-combat part at that, as evidence for this.

That’s irrelevant.

The concept of a Persistent-State World (PSW) or persistent world isn’t limited to the gaming sphere, so considerations such as combat have nothing to do with it.

Even if it were limited to that sphere, gaming culture in general, which includes gamers “worth their weight in Doritos” has already designated it to be an MMO.

It may represent a small part of Guild Wars, but it’s a deliberate and critical part of the design. It facilitates the social dynamic of the game, which is fundamental to the MMO (and MMORPG) experience.

It’s a virtual space, not a chat room, and it exists whether a user is logged into it or not, with dynamics that unfold independent of users. That’s a PSW. A small one, but one nonetheless, and the title itself validates that assessment:

“Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world.”

I don’t know what gamers you’ve talked to, but almost everyone I’ve met, even in gw1, didn’t think it was an mmo.

And you can argue all you want about the towns being dynamic and such(I assume you are referring to holiday events), but your picking at straws. The scope of it actually does matter. You’re kidding yourself if you think a persistent dot on an entire instanced map means the whole thing can be described sufficiently by the dot.

You can put a Benz hood ornament on your Camry, but it doesn’t make it a Mercedes.

Obsidian.1328:

Not sure why this keeps coming up.

This was covered in the opening of the initial post.

I’ll expound:

Certain participants in these forums use the declaration, “Guild Wars is not an MMO” as a deflection. Expressions of desire to see GW2 adopt its predecessor’s approach to gear progression are often met with this retort.

The implication is that, because Guild Wars is not an MMO, said approach will not translate to GW2.

This is, of course, a dubious claim, even if the premise were true. But it’s not.

Guild Wars never distanced itself from MMOs. It distanced itself from certain MMORPG conventions, in an effort to attract some measure of a dissatisfied MMO audience. It focused on unconventional features and employed unconventional models (game and business).

Unconventional.

Not completely unrelated.

That still places it in the same general category. Poprock vs. pop. It’s still pop.

Obsidian.1328:

Not sure why this makes players so angry, it’s a simple formula. I’ll just rehash my last discussion about this to save time.

It’s massive. It’s multiplayer. But it’s not massively multiplayer. By your own definition it’s not an mmo because it’s not a persistent world. Persistent, in a game context, means the game world persists after you log off. gw1 doesn’t do that because there’s no need to…it’s only you and your party in the zone.

Besides, that little “ly” at the end of massive may make it look like an adverb, but it’s really an adjective describing “multiplayer.” And if something is massively multiplayer, then it has hundreds of people inhabiting the same world at the same time.

Now if you want to point to the towns in gw1 as your evidence, well that is your prerogative. I doubt any gamer worth his weight in Doritoes would count 1% of the game, and a non-combat part at that, as evidence for this.

Not sure why this keeps coming up. I mean, I left gw1 because I wanted to play an mmo.

True story: I typed in “coorpg” in my search engine and the first hit was an article about how gw1 isn’t an mmo. Typing in “guild wars mmo” just gave a ton of stuff on this game. :/

All 3 major releases of GW1 had large starting areas that were persistent worlds. You could leave the towns and find lots of people fighting mobs.

It is extremely difficult for any MMO to have its entire world one persistent world because of technology limitations mostly on the user end. That is why the flavor of most MMO’s lately is to instance content when certain population limits have been reached.

No long winded wall of text can change the FACT, that Guild Wars 1 is not considered an MMO by most people who know what they’re talking about. CORPG is not MMORPG. They are two different things. Period.

And it’s hilarious to watch people try so hard to say it’s something it’s clearly, very clearly not.

So continue on, I do need the laugh.

DirtyDeeds.6075:

All 3 major releases of GW1 had large starting areas that were persistent worlds. You could leave the towns and find lots of people fighting mobs.

No… persistent means other people than your party which gw1 did not have. Did you even play GW1? Your statement is beyond false, it’s completely and utterly faulty.
GW1 by definition was not an MMO. However a.net did change a lot of stuff to make it more MMO-like but never really was. Without a persistent area, you do not have an MMO period. Pretty much end of discussion actually.

Calling a bike a car does not make it so

The most accurate genre for GW1 most likely was “diablo 2 clone” or hack ‘n’ slash.

GW2 was made because GW1 wasn’t an MMO.

I don’t really think it matters whether GW1 is described as an MMO or not – it’s just a label that has been invented. I’m sure it’s possible to argue semantics until you deduce that WoW or EQ are not technically MMOs. What matters is what you mean by using that label.

Saying that GW1 provides a persistent world I think is a stretch. From the GW2 release announcement :

Bellevue, WA., March 27, 2007—NCsoft® and ArenaNet® today revealed their exciting plans for the future of the hugely successful Guild Wars® franchise. The companies announced that development already is underway on a full sequel to the original Guild Wars games. Guild Wars 2TM will draw from the game mechanics that made the original Guild Wars one of the most popular online games ever and will add a fully persistent world.

(emphasis mine)

The design of GW1 isn’t irrelevant just because it doesn’t share that attribute with its successor, but I think it is clear that it does not have a “fully persistent world”.

The thing is, even if you could conclusively argue that Guild Wars 1 is “not an MMO” — So what?
I mean, as an academic point, if what you’re actually interested in is whether Guild Wars 1 is an MMO or not, and why, and what specific qualities would define it as an MMO or as a non-MMO, then sure.

But every time “Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMO!” crops up, it’s in defense of some set of mechanics that has absolutely nothing to do with how many players are allowed in the same instance.

It doesn’t change any of the design principles, except for the one where one game decided “The maximum number of players in an instance should be 8-16”, and one game decided “The maximum number of players in an instance should be a couple hundred, and then we’ll put them into a new (overflow) instance”.

So I mean, with respect, I think that it’s a complete red herring to get caught up in debating whether or not GW1 was an MMO — start asking people why that matters, and you can skip the part where the argument is derailed for three pages without even actually touching the topic of debate.

marnick.4305:

DirtyDeeds.6075:

All 3 major releases of GW1 had large starting areas that were persistent worlds. You could leave the towns and find lots of people fighting mobs.

No… persistent means other people than your party which gw1 did not have. Did you even play GW1? Your statement is beyond false, it’s completely and utterly faulty.
GW1 by definition was not an MMO. However a.net did change a lot of stuff to make it more MMO-like but never really was. Without a persistent area, you do not have an MMO period. Pretty much end of discussion actually.

Calling a bike a car does not make it so

The most accurate genre for GW1 most likely was “diablo 2 clone” or hack ‘n’ slash.

GW2 was made because GW1 wasn’t an MMO.

I was going to comment about the same thing, but I think he is referring to the starter zone where you do see other players fighting mobs, it was the only persistent area in the game, most of the older players play this area to get achievement and to attempt reaching lvl 20. Its also one of the better areas for getting black dyes from my understanding.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Ditton.3149:

what they mean is guild wars is not a persistent world which most mmos are.

This was addressed in the initial post.

There are indeed persistent environments within the virtual space of the game. Hence, the language, “Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world.” These areas exist independent of user interaction, can change whether a user logs in or not (events, for example). Yes, this space is comparatively small, but it’s there and it is shared. It doesn’t need to be of a certain scope to qualify.

So….

Call of Duty is an MMO? Dark Souls? Ratchet and Clank? I mean, they have “persistent” worlds that can change as well and thousands of players able to interact

Cod Eye.1632:

marnick.4305:

DirtyDeeds.6075:

All 3 major releases of GW1 had large starting areas that were persistent worlds. You could leave the towns and find lots of people fighting mobs.

No… persistent means other people than your party which gw1 did not have. Did you even play GW1? Your statement is beyond false, it’s completely and utterly faulty.
GW1 by definition was not an MMO. However a.net did change a lot of stuff to make it more MMO-like but never really was. Without a persistent area, you do not have an MMO period. Pretty much end of discussion actually.

Calling a bike a car does not make it so

The most accurate genre for GW1 most likely was “diablo 2 clone” or hack ‘n’ slash.

GW2 was made because GW1 wasn’t an MMO.

I was going to comment about the same thing, but I think he is referring to the starter zone where you do see other players fighting mobs, it was the only persistent area in the game, most of the older players play this area to get achievement and to attempt reaching lvl 20. Its also one of the better areas for getting black dyes from my understanding.

The second you walked out the gates in PreSearing it was just you and maybe one other person in the Ascalon countryside. The only time you ever dealt with people who weren’t in your party in a non-pvp setting in GW was two missions in Factions where your team worked together with another, randomly selected, team to achieve a goal that converged two separate story lines and which only existed as long as you were in the mission zone.

The only true persistent areas were the towns which were essentially fancy hub lobbies since no actual combat ever took place in them that you could participate in.

Substance E.4852:

Cod Eye.1632:

marnick.4305:

DirtyDeeds.6075:

All 3 major releases of GW1 had large starting areas that were persistent worlds. You could leave the towns and find lots of people fighting mobs.

No… persistent means other people than your party which gw1 did not have. Did you even play GW1? Your statement is beyond false, it’s completely and utterly faulty.
GW1 by definition was not an MMO. However a.net did change a lot of stuff to make it more MMO-like but never really was. Without a persistent area, you do not have an MMO period. Pretty much end of discussion actually.

Calling a bike a car does not make it so

The most accurate genre for GW1 most likely was “diablo 2 clone” or hack ‘n’ slash.

GW2 was made because GW1 wasn’t an MMO.

I was going to comment about the same thing, but I think he is referring to the starter zone where you do see other players fighting mobs, it was the only persistent area in the game, most of the older players play this area to get achievement and to attempt reaching lvl 20. Its also one of the better areas for getting black dyes from my understanding.

The second you walked out the gates in PreSearing it was just you and maybe one other person in the Ascalon countryside. The only time you ever dealt with people who weren’t in your party in a non-pvp setting in GW was two missions in Factions where your team worked together with another, randomly selected, team to achieve a goal that converged two separate story lines and which only existed as long as you were in the mission zone.

The only true persistent areas were the towns which were essentially fancy hub lobbies since no actual combat ever took place in them that you could participate in.

Been a while since I played, I apologise as I stand corrected.

Well this thread turned into “Guild Wars 1 was NOT an MMO” real quick didn’t it?

Can OP please change the title.

Someone said it earlier, even the people who played GW1 in game would tell you it was not an MMO.

OP is grasping at straws to prove a point that doesn’t exist. No matter how much you want to think you have been playing an MMO the last few years in GW1, hate to break it to you, or anyone else misinformed, but you were not. You were playing a heavily instanced CORPG, with some multiplayer matches tacted on. And no, it’s not the same thing, on MANY levels.

The qoute you linked in the OP, says, “Like MMO’s”, “like”, “LIKE”, meaning they tried to make it like an MMO, but it wasn’t. So they made GW2, a true MMO with a persistent world.

Obsidian.1328:

I don’t know what gamers you’ve talked to, but almost everyone I’ve met, even in gw1, didn’t think it was an mmo.

- MMORPG.com’s list of MMORPGs.
- Massively’s list of MMOs.
- List of MMORPGs on Wikipedia.
- Guild Wars page on Top Ton Hammer, a site that focuses on MMOs.
- Guild Wars page on mmo-play.com
- Guild Wars page on mmosite.com

Do you want me to start digging into dry industry reports as well?

Your anecdotal evidence isn’t really applicable. The culture and industry define it as an MMO. The title was distributed by a publisher of MMOs. The title’s website includes it in the genre (note above quote in first post) in its language describing the product.

And you can argue all you want about the towns being dynamic and such(I assume you are referring to holiday events), but your picking at straws. The scope of it actually does matter.

No, it actually doesn’t, which I already explicitly stated. You’re not really in a position to redefine what qualifies as a PSW. This point’s been answered. It was preemptively answered in the first post. Research the subject yourself, and you’ll find that it’s not really open to your re-interpretive attempts at moving the goalpost.

And again, you’re also arguing with the product’s own description, which I’ve now quoted multiple times. Here, I’ll do it again:

“Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world.”

Obviously, they weren’t talking about instances there.

So you’ll cite product description (CORPG) when it suits your argument. But when it doesn’t, you repeatedly fail to acknowledge it.

Why is that?

You can put a Benz hood ornament on your Camry, but it doesn’t make it a Mercedes.

And you can glue wings to the side of a truck, but that doesn’t make it not a truck.

You’re free to cleave to the opinion that Guild Wars is not an MMO, even in light of everything that says otherwise. However, the industry disagrees with you, the culture disagrees with you, the distributor disagrees with you, and even the title itself disagrees with you.

So, at the very least, “Guild Wars is not an MMO!” cannot be pronounced as inarguable fact.

Obsidian.1328:

Now if you want to point to the towns in gw1 as your evidence, well that is your prerogative. I doubt any gamer worth his weight in Doritoes would count 1% of the game, and a non-combat part at that, as evidence for this.

I’m not taking sides, but it is funny that some of the current “real MMO’s” have turned into what GW1 is, with players sitting in town waiting to party up for instanced content. There may be a persistent world, but it’s ironic that in some games, less players use it regularly than they use instances.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Obsidian.1328:

I don’t know what gamers you’ve talked to, but almost everyone I’ve met, even in gw1, didn’t think it was an mmo.

- MMORPG.com’s list of MMORPGs.
- Massively’s list of MMOs.
- List of MMORPGs on Wikipedia.
- Guild Wars page on Top Ton Hammer, a site that focuses on MMOs.
- Guild Wars page on mmo-play.com
- Guild Wars page on mmosite.com

So you’re not the only one misinformed? Those sites cover RPG’s too, doesn’t mean they are MMO’s.

And by using your logic, like the guy above said, is call of duty an MMO? Thousands of players play in the same world, except all split up into smaller 32 player instances. Or how about borderlands, or red dead redemption, are those MMO’s in your book too?

DegoLocc.5976:

No long winded wall of text

- Ad hominem
- Text is not “long-winded”.
- If you have trouble with text, you should probably not be engaging in a text-based medium.

Guild Wars 1 is not considered an MMO by most people who know what they’re talking about.

False.

I have now cited multiple industry and cultural sources, including the website of the title itself.

Please reveal who these “people who know what they’re talking about” are. Developers? Journalists? Who are they?

CORPG is not MMORPG. They are two different things. Period.

Correct. The latter is a subgenre, the former is not. It’s a marketing label.

If you’re asserting otherwise, please provide a list of CORPG titles.

Hydrophidian.4319:

DegoLocc.5976:

No long winded wall of text

- Ad hominem
- Text is not “long-winded”.
- If you have trouble with text, you should probably not be engaging in a text-based medium.

Guild Wars 1 is not considered an MMO by most people who know what they’re talking about.

False.

I have now cited multiple industry and cultural sources, including the website of the title itself.

Please reveal who these “people who know what they’re talking about” are. Developers? Journalists? Who are they?

CORPG is not MMORPG. They are two different things. Period.

Correct. The latter is a subgenre, the former is not. It’s a marketing label.

If you’re asserting otherwise, please provide a list of CORPG titles.

You will be hard pressed to find MANY ppl who actually played GW1 to agree with you. You just want it to be an MMO so bad, but it just isn’t. Nothing you linked changes the fact that the game was not a persistent open world, with 100’s of players fighting in the same zone/map all at the same time. That is what an MMO is. 100’s off ppl on the same map. GW1 doesn’t have that. Your argument is annoyingly lacking any substance, just you grasping for straws. Let it go man.

LOL or keep going, I am dying laughing here.

Also I would love for a dev of GW1 to chime in here and tell you himself, that even they admit GW1 was NOT an MMO. But instead a CORPG, that tried to be “LIKE” an MMO, but just wasn’t, and that’s why they made GW2. If what they had before was so great, or the next big thing they would have stuck to that, instead of making an MMO.

Another CORPG? Why sure, dark souls, and demon souls, there ya go. I can name more, if you’d like.

GW is not an MMO I don’t care what sources from the web you pull from google. /end off

DegoLocc.5976:

Those sites cover RPG’s too, doesn’t mean they are MMO’s.

In each case, the genre of the title is listed as MMO or MMORPG.

And by using your logic, like the guy above said, is call of duty an MMO? Thousands of players play in the same world, except all split up into smaller 32 player instances.

Is there a PSW?

Or how about borderlands

Is there a PSW?

or red dead redemption

Is there a PSW?

are those MMO’s in your book too?

It’s not “my book”.

By all means, provide you definition of an MMO. How does it differ?

Hydrophidian.4319:

DegoLocc.5976:

Those sites cover RPG’s too, doesn’t mean they are MMO’s.

In each case, the genre of the title is listed as MMO or MMORPG.

And by using your logic, like the guy above said, is call of duty an MMO? Thousands of players play in the same world, except all split up into smaller 32 player instances.

Is there a PSW?

Or how about borderlands

Is there a PSW?

or red dead redemption

Is there a PSW?

are those MMO’s in your book too?

It’s not “my book”.

By all means, provide you definition of an MMO. How does it differ?

GTA 4 and red dead redemption BOTH have online persistent worlds, are they MMO’s too?

I did provide a definition, 100’s of players on the same map/zone, at the same time able to engage each other in a persistent world. GW1 doesn’t have that. It has open world “dungeons” or instances, in which you only play with your small group, and that’s it. They also have small scale pvp matches which are instanced similar to how COD does matchmaking.

Nope, still not an MMO.

Heck, Red dead redemptions online sandboxs have a more “MMO” feel too them than GW1 did. But it’s still not an MMO because 30 players is not “Massive” it’s standard.

DegoLocc.5976:

You will be hard pressed to find MANY ppl who actually played GW1 to agree with you.

This tact has already been addressed in a previous post.

I’ll take this to mean you actually don’t have any sources. You’re just expressing an opinion.

You just want it to be an MMO so bad, but it just isn’t.

Ad hominem. Please refrain from that.

Nothing you linked changes the fact that the game was not a persistent open world, with 100’s of players fighting in the same zone/map. That is what an MMO is. 100’s off ppl on the same map. GW1 doesn’t have that. Your argument is annoyingly lacking any substance, just you grasping for straws. Let it go man.

No.

I’ve provided sources and I’ve quoted the actual website for the title. I’ve gone by the actual accepted definitions of what an MMO and a PSW are.

You have countered with… what? Your insistence? An appeal to some mysterious authority you assure me exists?

Substance, indeed.

LOL or keep going, I am dying laughing here.

Oh, I’m pretty sure you’re not, but that’s not really here nor there.

Also I would love for a dev of GW1 to chime in here

So would I.

DegoLocc.5976:

GTA 4 and red dead redemption BOTH have online persistent worlds, are they MMO’s too?

MMOs are defined by the following three attributes:

- Hosted, online play.
- A persistent world.
- A large number of concurrent users (thousands or more).

If it has all three of these attributes, it’s an MMO. It doesn’t even have to be a game (that’s an MMOG).

I did provide a definition, 100’s of players on the same map/zone, at the same time able to engage each other in a persistent world. GW1 doesn’t have that.

Yes, I’m afraid it does. This has been explained in previous posts. The product description even includes the claim, which I’ve quoted 3 or 4 times now.

Still waiting to hear if you think GTA 4 and Red Dead Redemption’s online sandbox modes are MMO’s

The thing with you, is you only quote and answer what you want to. But I have gave you other examples of CORPG’s to which you have said nothing, and using your definition and logic pointed out other games which meet your criteria and asked you if they too were considered MMO’s and have still yet to hear your take on said subject. You rebuttlas are aimed at everything but the point I am making.

Avoiding my way of pointing out the obvious to you, so you can remain oblivious to the debate does not mean I haven’t proved my point 10 times over. Your point, well you have none.

The game is not an MMO, GW1 players who have played MMO’s will tell you the same.

Thanks for the laugh though, and good luck trying to convince us all the sky is neon green.

Good Night

DegoLocc.5976:

No long winded wall of text can change the FACT, that Guild Wars 1 is not considered an MMO by most people who know what they’re talking about. CORPG is not MMORPG. They are two different things. Period.

And it’s hilarious to watch people try so hard to say it’s something it’s clearly, very clearly not.

So continue on, I do need the laugh.

Sorry, you aren’t most people, son.

@Hydrophidian: What parts of GW1 are you describing as a persistent world?

I can’t think of any that satisfy both criteria:

• continues to exist after users have departed; and
• users can affect some kind of lasting change on the state of the world.

DegoLocc.5976:

Still waiting to hear if you think GTA 4 and Red Dead Redemption’s online sandbox modes are MMO’s

The thing with you, is you only quote and answer what you want to. But I have gave you other examples of CORPG’s to which you have said nothing, and using your definition and logic pointed out other games which meet your criteria and asked you if they too were considered MMO’s and have still yet to hear your take on said subject. You rebuttlas are aimed at everything but the point I am making.

I have directly addressed your point. I did it in the first post, before you even started.

I have stated what qualifies an MMO. Do the titles you list meet those qualifications? If so, they would be considered to be MMOs.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that I’m employing some sort of personal definition. I’m not.

As to your CORPG title examples, I simply missed them the first time, so sorry for that. First of all, that’s not a list. If I’m not mistaken, that’s two titles from one franchise. And it’s apparently just your personal assessment. Let me be clearer: provide an actual list from a source that recognizes the CORPG label as a distinct genre in the industry.

Avoiding my way of pointing out the obvious to you, so you can remain oblivious to the debate does not mean I haven’t proved my point 10 times over.

Again, ad hominem. Again, please refrain. You’re welcome to take issue with my assertion. Attacking me, however, isn’t appreciated, damages your argument, and is against the CoC.

The game is not an MMO, GW1 players who have played MMO’s will tell you the same.

Again, this has been addressed and countered already. Repeating it doesn’t make it anymore true or relevant.

Roven Leafsong.8917:

@Hydrophidian: What parts of GW1 are you describing as a persistent world?

I can’t think of any that satisfy both criteria:

• continues to exist after users have departed; and
• users can affect some kind of lasting change on the state of the world.

I would suggest reading this document, starting at page 29.

The social hubs of Guild Wars are persistent. And, if you read that document, I think you’ll see how the model of the game was quite clearly designed to target a PSW market.

Much of the world of Guild Wars is instanced. But this is true of other games that’re dubbed MMORPGs, and no one’s arguing about those. The only difference is the scope. And that isn’t relevant to the definition of a PSW.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Additionally, the website for the title actually describes the game as an MMO that avoids “some of the more tedious aspects” of the genre. Also from the website (emphasis mine):

“Like existing MMOs, Guild Wars is played entirely online in a secure hosted environment. Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world. Players can meet new friends in gathering places like towns and outposts where they form parties and go questing with them.”

You left out some of that quote. What it actually says is:

Is Guild Wars an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)?

Guild Wars has some similarities to existing MMORPGs, but it also has some key differences. Like existing MMOs, Guild Wars is played entirely online in a secure hosted environment. Thousands of players inhabit the same virtual world. Players can meet new friends in gathering places like towns and outposts where they form parties and go questing with them. Unlike many MMOs, when players form a party and embark upon a quest in Guild Wars, they get their own private copy of the area where the quest takes place. This design eliminates some of the frustrating gameplay elements commonly associated with MMOs, such as spawn camping, loot stealing, and standing in a queue in order to complete a quest.

Guild Wars takes place in a large virtual world made up of many different zones, and players can walk from one end of the world to the other. In Guild Wars much of the tedium of traveling through the world has been eliminated. Players can instantly return to any safe area (town or outpost) that they have previously visited just by clicking on it in the world overview map.

Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible competitive role-playing experience. Success in Guild Wars is always the result of player skill, not time spent playing or the size of one’s guild. As characters progress, they acquire a diverse set of skills and items, enabling them to use new strategies in combat. Players can do battle in open arenas or compete in guild-vs-guild warfare or the international tournament. Engaging in combat is always the player’s choice, however; there is no player-killing in cooperative areas of the world.

Players in Guild Wars can play with or against players from around the world in the global tournaments and arenas. And while players are initially placed in a region based on their selected language (so that there is a greater likelihood that others will be speaking their language) they can join up in the always-available International District to form parties and to play with anyone from anywhere in the world.

Anet describe it as similar to MMO’s, but with some key differences. They classify it as a CORPG.

GW1 is a very good multiplayer game, but it’s not an MMO.

Crater.1625:

So I mean, with respect, I think that it’s a complete red herring to get caught up in debating whether or not GW1 was an MMO — start asking people why that matters, and you can skip the part where the argument is derailed for three pages without even actually touching the topic of debate.

Or… be aware of the deflection at the outset, so you don’t fall into its trap in the first place.

You’re right, the declaration that it’s not a MMO is essentially meaningless to the broader debates it’s so often employed in. That doesn’t stop people from making it, though, and it doesn’t stop it from derailing those discussions.

So, here it is, singled out in its own thread, to be knocked about by the usual suspects. Maybe if it’s beaten to death here, its prominence in other discussions will drop off.

Anet describe it as similar to MMO’s, but with some key differences. They classify it as a CORPG.

Yes, this was specifically addressed in the first post.

Quoting the entirety of the game description doesn’t change anything I’ve stated.

GW1 is a very good multiplayer game, but it’s not an MMO.

The industry and culture disagree with you.

But please provide your alternative definition of an MMO. Citing sources would also be appreciated.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Anet describe it as similar to MMO’s, but with some key differences. They classify it as a CORPG.

Yes, this was specifically addressed in the first post.

Quoting the entirety of the game description doesn’t change anything I’ve stated.

GW1 is a very good multiplayer game, but it’s not an MMO.

The industry and culture disagree with you.

But please provide your alternative definition of an MMO. Citing sources would also be appreciated.

Anet disagree with you and their classification of their own game is the only one that matters. It’s no more an MMO than D3 is.

And by the way, your MMORPG. com list of MMORPG’s includes a number of other games that aren’t MMO’s. I see DOTA 2 on the list. You can’t seriously try to argue that DOTA is an MMORPG as well.

Ditton.3149:

what they mean is guild wars is not a persistent world which most mmos are. At least that is how I take it and yes its a big difference.

Guild Wars has a persistent world. I don’t think you’ve played.

Obsidian.1328:

Not sure why this makes players so angry, it’s a simple formula. I’ll just rehash my last discussion about this to save time.

It’s massive. It’s multiplayer. But it’s not massively multiplayer. By your own definition it’s not an mmo because it’s not a persistent world. Persistent, in a game context, means the game world persists after you log off. gw1 doesn’t do that because there’s no need to…it’s only you and your party in the zone.

Besides, that little “ly” at the end of massive may make it look like an adverb, but it’s really an adjective describing “multiplayer.” And if something is massively multiplayer, then it has hundreds of people inhabiting the same world at the same time.

Now if you want to point to the towns in gw1 as your evidence, well that is your prerogative. I doubt any gamer worth his weight in Doritoes would count 1% of the game, and a non-combat part at that, as evidence for this.

Not sure why this keeps coming up. I mean, I left gw1 because I wanted to play an mmo.

True story: I typed in “coorpg” in my search engine and the first hit was an article about how gw1 isn’t an mmo. Typing in “guild wars mmo” just gave a ton of stuff on this game. :/

So you left an MMO to play an MMO? Interesting. That still doesn’t change the fact that Guild Wars is an MMO. Just because it isn’t World of Warcraft doesn’t change the fact that it’s an MMO.

Persistent world? Check.

Massive number of players playing simultaneously? Check.

Hosted online? Check.

Guild Wars is an MMO.

DegoLocc.5976:

No long winded wall of text can change the FACT, that Guild Wars 1 is not considered an MMO by most people who know what they’re talking about. CORPG is not MMORPG. They are two different things. Period.

And it’s hilarious to watch people try so hard to say it’s something it’s clearly, very clearly not.

So continue on, I do need the laugh.

What part of it isn’t an MMO? Did you even play the game?

It’s online, allows a massive number of players to play together, and has a persistent world. That’s what an MMO is.

This thread is becoming really funny.

- It is red it’s a ferrarri!!!
- erm no it’s actually a spray-painted citroën 2CV
- your definition of ferrarri is wrong, red cars are always ferrarris!!!

An MMO by definition has a persistent world with multiple parties in it, on the scale of hundreds of potential players, as in ‘massive’. No matter how you turn it, GW1 doesn’t have a persistent combat world, and the cap is 16 is the largest pve area. Hardly massive …

It is multiplayer, it is only, it’s an RPG. It did borrow heavily from MMO-type games however GW was NOT massive.

I wonder who he’s trying to convince and why? What does it mean to him?

Kana.6793:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Anet describe it as similar to MMO’s, but with some key differences. They classify it as a CORPG.

Yes, this was specifically addressed in the first post.

Quoting the entirety of the game description doesn’t change anything I’ve stated.

GW1 is a very good multiplayer game, but it’s not an MMO.

The industry and culture disagree with you.

But please provide your alternative definition of an MMO. Citing sources would also be appreciated.

Anet disagree with you and their classification of their own game is the only one that matters. It’s no more an MMO than D3 is.

And by the way, your MMORPG. com list of MMORPG’s includes a number of other games that aren’t MMO’s. I see DOTA 2 on the list. You can’t seriously try to argue that DOTA is an MMORPG as well.

Do you always listen to marketing departments?

Tempest.1254:

Persistent world? Check.

Massive number of players playing simultaneously? Check.

Hosted online? Check.

Guild Wars is an MMO.

Persistent world? Nope

Massive numbers of players playing simultaneously? Nope (unless you consider 8 people a massive number)

Hosted online? Check, but so is Halo.

Isn’t MMO in the name itself? Why is this a debate? Massively multiplayer online. Lol, look to the name.

Anet disagree with you and their classification of their own game is the only one that matters.

First of all, no, ArenaNet does not appear to disagree with me. This point was covered in the first post. The language of the product description marks it as an MMO, but with departures from standard MMORPG convention. MMO and MMORPG are not the same things.

Secondly, no, its classification is not the only one that matters. The game doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists within the context of a larger industry and culture, in which there are genres and market spaces. “CORPG” is a marketing label, unrecognized outside of the title’s product description. Genres are not declared by any one authority alone.

Most of the game can only be played with 8 people. That is not massively multiplayer. In most areas of the game if those 8 people log out their instance does not remain. That is not persistent.

The towns are a lobby. The rest of the game is an instanced co-op game.

Persistent world? Nope

This has already been covered. Your “nope” is countered by the title’s website itself.

Massive numbers of players playing simultaneously? Nope (unless you consider 8 people a massive number)

I count the number of people that used to gather in hubs to be as numerous as in any other shared space on an MMO. So many that it was SoP for me to shut off local, emotes, and trade chat.

This represents a social dynamic fundamental to the genre category. It was most assuredly present.

Hydrophidian.4319:

I would suggest reading this document, starting at page 29.

An interesting read, thank you for linking it. Note that it was written at a time when Guild Wars was still in beta testing.

I also note that the volunteers who put together the report (not ISDA) saw fit to include games such as Crazy Arcade (a multiplayer Bomberman) and Majestic (an Alternate-Reality-Game) as falling under their classification.

I think their paper is a nice attempt to summarise game trends and potential returns for prospective investors, but I don’t think their work is entirely accurate nor seminal, and offers a terrible perspective for actual designers in places (in my lay opinion, anyway).

Particularly, I disagree with this excerpt:

The PSW game is generally characterized as having an
environment that continues to exist even when no one is playing it (thus the word
“persistent”), that supports a large number of simultaneous players (thus the
alternative moniker “massively multiplayer” or MMP), and retains records of
player data indefinitely (also implied by ”persistent”). Exceptions exist, but for the
scope of this brief introduction, this suffices. For these characteristic definitions of
a PSW, a survey of game design should agree on the objectives of the design.
For brevity and clarity, let us consider the objectives of good PSW game design
to include:

• customer renewal
• fair opportunity
• low harassment
• low service call volume
• low resource consumption

First, they have defined “persistent world” rather loosely as only requiring a (potentially static) environment that continues to exist after users depart, in addition to storing certain attributes of the player between sessions. That means that any static lobby capable of facilitating a certain number of players would meet the criteria, provided something about the player (say, their name and level) persists between sessions. With this definition, I can understand how they have designated simple match-making online games as “PSWs”, but it dilutes the classification of the genre rather significantly.

Second, they have designated the goal objectives of “PSWs” entirely in what I consider to be repugnant, gamification-like terms. The goals do not include fun, immersion, adventure, connection, community and so on – the key measure of satisfaction is “customer retention”. That is, it doesn’t matter how the customer feels (notice they are not a player, user or subscriber), “because in several instances the customer complains loudly yet continues to subscribe; and conversely, may not complain at all yet silently cancel their subscription.” A satisfied customer is a paying customer. Ugh.

The social hubs of Guild Wars are persistent. And, if you read that document, I think you’ll see how the model of the game was quite clearly designed to target a PSW market.

I thought that’s what you were referring to. Would you at least agree that they lack the ability for the user to influence the state of the world in any lasting fashion? (Which would seem a hallmark of MMORPGs, if not these PSWs.)

Edit: Thinking about it some more, perhaps you could avoid some of the confusion by changing your topic title to “Guild Wars IS a PSW”?

marnick.4305:

This thread is becoming really funny.

- It is red it’s a ferrarri!!!
- erm no it’s actually a spray-painted citroën 2CV
- your definition of ferrarri is wrong, red cars are always ferrarris!!!

An MMO by definition has a persistent world with multiple parties in it, on the scale of hundreds of potential players, as in ‘massive’. No matter how you turn it, GW1 doesn’t have a persistent combat world, and the cap is 16 is the largest pve area. Hardly massive …

It is multiplayer, it is only, it’s an RPG. It did borrow heavily from MMO-type games however GW was NOT massive.

I wonder who he’s trying to convince and why? What does it mean to him?

Guild Wars is an MMO. It meets the criteria to be one. Get over it.

Kana.6793:

The towns are a lobby. The rest of the game is an instanced co-op game.

Calling those areas a “lobby” doesn’t change what they were: persistent. And that they were was critical to the game’s design. People were meant to gather there.

How about this…

The bulk of the game content in City of Heroes was instanced. Most of it could be engaged in by no more than 8 people. So was it not an MMO?

Are you making a distinction due to the “size” of the shared space? The thing is, that’s not a qualifying attribute of a PSW.

Are you saying that GW is disqualified because there was no combat in the shared space? Again, that’s not a qualifying attribute of a PSW (MMOs don’t even have to be games).