Guild Wars 2

Hydrophidian.4319:

Meanwhile, you’ve failed to bring any support for your argument at all, despite direct requests. If your point were so strong, so evident, shouldn’t you be able to do more than belittle the person you’re arguing with (who also asked you to refrain from it more than once)

Oh but I have brought several points, a good debating tactic is to poke holes in your theory which I have done several times. I have never once attacked you or insulted you. Discredit your argument with pure logic however, now that is something I am completely guilty of.

Sorry for bringing logic into your topic, and I’m sorry the truth that you’re wrong in your assumptions seems to hurt you so much. It was never meant to. You shouldn’t take things so personally in future when trying to debate. Especially when trying to debate against something that is widely and firmly accepted.

Hydrophidian.4319:

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.

That. The number of people you see on the same screen has nothing to do with how progression works, and it’s not a valid point to argue that GW1’s playing philosophy and main principles wouldn’t work for a game with a larger persistent world.

Fact is that GW1 is a game with a huge (massive ;P) community with many many people playing very cooperatively together at the same time, so in that sense it does make sense to call it an MMORPG. Whether you see 100 or 1000 of them in the same town as your character is in doesn’t matter when the discussion is about how progress in the game works as such.
All of how GW1 worked in that regard would still fit very well into a bigger persistent world like GW2 just as well, no matter with what capital letters you do or don’t label either game.

I think the OP just had too many players use the “GW1 wasn’t an MMO!” line to justify arguments about gear-progression. The problem is, one doesn’t really have anything to do with the other. So those other players remarks have somehow tainted this argument. I thought we were talking about the definition of an MMO. Whatever outside influence brought the topic to the forums is kind of irrelevant to this discussion.

I was just going by the wiki(bleh!) definition of the word, and its supposed origins. If someone can come up with a more valid definition I’m all ears. I’ll rehash an analogy I’ve already used to describe why I don’t think GW1 counts as an MMO:

If you put a drop of tequila in a glass of margarita mix, almost no one would call that a margarita.

Not the bartender, not the waitress, and certainly not the customers. But there’s always that one guy at the end of the bar that says, “TECHNICALLY THAT COUNTS!”

Use your head peoples.

“Not the bartender, not the waitress, and certainly not the customers. But there’s always that one guy at the end of the bar that says, “TECHNICALLY THAT COUNTS!””

Actually, it’s more like putting rum in a mug and then people saying it’s a lager because only lagers go into mugs.

And the argument only started 16 weeks later when someone said rum wasn’t an alcohol because it wasn’t served in mugs.

Eveningstar.6940:

Clear definitions are essential to clear arguments. But I think your argument isn’t really about whether or not GW1 is an MMORPG; it’s about whether or not we should dismiss GW1’s ideas because of how we choose to label the game.

Close.

What I’ve tried to do here is reveal what the assertion, “Guild Wars is not an MMO!” is actually predicated upon.

In this thread, it’s comes down almost entirely to a debate on what qualifies as a persistent world.

I actually think a solid argument can be made either way. I’ve presented one side, and I’ve not been the only one to do so.

But, in relation to its disqualification as an MMO, no one has countered with any the game’s mechanics. No one has cited its (considerable) lack of social features or any other aspect of its design. Whether or not its really a persistent world is the only sticking point. That’s the only thing that puts its status as an MMO on shaky ground.

So… what does that have to do with gear progression?

I agree with Crater up thread (who, along with you, has become one of my favorite posters here). This whole debate is a red herring. It really isn’t relevant to the central questions this forum has been focused on lately. What I’ve tried to do is to demonstrate why that is.

Obsidian.1328:

I think the OP just had too many players use the “GW1 wasn’t an MMO!” line to justify arguments about gear-progression. The problem is, one doesn’t really have anything to do with the other. So those other players remarks have somehow tainted this argument. I thought we were talking about the definition of an MMO. Whatever outside influence brought the topic to the forums is kind of irrelevant to this discussion.

I was just going by the wiki(bleh!) definition of the word, and its supposed origins. If someone can come up with a better definition I’m all ears. I’ll rehash an analogy I’ve already used to describe my point of view:

If you put a drop of tequila in a glass of margarita mix, almost no one would call that a margarita.

Not the bartender, not the waitress, and certainly not the customers. But there’s always that one guy at the end of the bar that says, “TECHNICALLY THAT COUNTS!”

Use your head peoples.

Yep, exactly what I’ve been thinking.

It’s kind of like, if someone were to argue that it’s more efficient to jog than to drive to convenience store, and justify this argument by saying 2+2 = 4.

While it is true that 2+2 = 4, that has absolutely nothing to do with the efficiency of driving vs. jogging. This is much the same as someone arguing that MMORPGs require gear grind because GW1 was not an MMORPG…the two facts are irrelevant to one another.

But in this thread, the OP has decided to attack the “2+2 = 4” part of the argument, which is absolutely silly.

First, it is silly because 2+2 DOES equal 4, and GW1 is NOT an MMORPG…so it’s just a losing argument.

Second, it is silly because even if the OP did somehow manage to prove that GW1 is an MMORPG…it would mean absolutely nothing to his original point about gear progression not being required. Because he would fall into the same fallacy as the people arguing that gear progression is required in an MMORPG because GW1 is not an MMORPG…which is that these facts are not even related.

@Hydrophidian

It’s not the only sticking point, I had two others:

1) It’s not “massively-multiplayer,” meaning the multiplayer function is not on a massive scale. You can’t separate those two words in this definition.

2) Common Sense. I could probably find a point to make Paine’s pamphlet pertinent to this poignant palaver, but I’m too pooped.

Yay aliteration!

DegoLocc.5976:

Oh but I have brought several points, a good debating tactic is to poke holes in your theory which I have done several times.

I’d disagree that ‘because I say so’ is a “good debating tactic”, and that’s largely all you’ve done. The difference was addressed in the initial post.

I have never once attacked you or insulted you.

“No long winded wall of text” <— this is an attack on presentation instead of the actual argument.

“No matter how much you want to think you have been playing an MMO” <— this is an attempt to ascribe negative attribute on the arguer, instead of focusing on the argument.

“You just want it to be an MMO so bad, but it just isn’t.” <— Same.

“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.” <— Same, and now resorts to insult with “oblivious”.

“You have the attitude of, “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong”.” <— Same.

“You shouldn’t take things so personally in future when trying to debate.” <— Same.

The thing is, even if all these claims about me were true (they’re not, and you have no way of knowing anyhow) they don’t necessarily counter my argument.

You routinely commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Those are six examples from this very thread.

I find your delivery, overall, to be snide, hostile and dismissive. Also, after nearly 30 years online, I find it to be tiresome and trite. I’ve seen it a million times before. It has no emotional impact on me, beyond perhaps vague amusement or mild annoyance.

If you want any further response from me, you’ll have to refrain from this routine.

Thanks for your contribution, such as it was, to the dialogue.

Per dictionary defintion, GW1 IS an MMO. Per dictionary defintion, a Mac is a personal computer (PC). Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO and a Mac is not a PC.

Regardless, calling GW1 an MMO or not an MMO is a matter of semantics that has no bearing on anything.

Hydrophidian.4319:

DegoLocc.5976:

Oh but I have brought several points, a good debating tactic is to poke holes in your theory which I have done several times.

I’d disagree that ‘because I say so’ is a “good debating tactic”, and that’s largely all you’ve done. The difference was addressed in the initial post.

I have never once attacked you or insulted you.

“No long winded wall of text” <— this is an attack on presentation instead of the actual argument.

“No matter how much you want to think you have been playing an MMO” <— this is an attempt to ascribe negative attribute on the arguer, instead of focusing on the argument.

“You just want it to be an MMO so bad, but it just isn’t.” <— Same.

“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.” <— Same, and now resorts to insult with “oblivious”.

“You have the attitude of, “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong”.” <— Same.

“You shouldn’t take things so personally in future when trying to debate.” <— Same.

The thing is, even if all these claims about me were true (they’re not, and you have no way of knowing anyhow) they don’t necessarily counter my argument.

You routinely commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Those are six examples from this very thread.

I find your delivery, overall, to be snide, hostile and dismissive. Also, after nearly 30 years online, I find it to be tiresome and trite. I’ve seen it a million times before. It has no emotional impact on me, beyond perhaps vague amusement or mild annoyance.

If you want any further response from me, you’ll have to refrain from this routine.

Thanks for your contribution, such as it was, to the dialogue.

None of thee mentioned above are personal insults or attacks. “Oblivious” is not an insult, it means you “don’t know” or “are not privy to”( example: you are oblivious to ALL the points me and other posters have brought to you in this thread because they threaten your precious argument that you seem to hold so dear).

And your above post supports my theory that you are taking this debate way too personally, when we all have tried to draw you a picture in this thread of why gw1 is NOT an MMO, but you just keep seeming to miss that point.

So yes, I stand by all I said, especially about not taking a debate so personally. I was never rude to you, or attacked you or your person verbally. I never insulted you, and if you’re insulted it must be due to your in ability to comprehend anything I say.

Have a nice day!

I don’t mean to be offensive, but why do you keep using that phrase “ad hominem?” Why not just say “Don’t get personal please.”?

Obsidian.1328:

I don’t mean to be offensive, but why do you keep using that phrase “ad hominem?” Why not just say “Don’t get personal please.”?

You’re such a hipster.

Merthax.5172:

Per dictionary defintion, GW1 IS an MMO. Per dictionary defintion, a Mac is a personal computer (PC). Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO and a Mac is not a PC.

Regardless, calling GW1 an MMO or not an MMO is a matter of semantics that has no bearing on anything.

At this point it seems the OP just wants to argue, because you’re right, it really doesn’t mean anything special, GW1 not being an MMO. Yet he wants to go on, and on. It’s like in his mind, the whole vertical progression argument hinges in the outcome of this thread or something.

Merthax.5172:

Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO

I’ve already demonstrated that this is not the case. It’s generally categorized as an MMO, and I provided several links in support of that.

@Creslin:

MMO and MMORPG aren’t synonymous.

You should be careful about the assumptions you make about the people you’re referring to.

Obsidian.1328:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Obsidian.1328:

I don’t mean to be offensive, but why do you keep using that phrase “ad hominem?” Why not just say “Don’t get personal please.”?

You’re such a hipster.

Ad hominem

:D This is getting so meta now.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Obsidian.1328:

I don’t mean to be offensive, but why do you keep using that phrase “ad hominem?” Why not just say “Don’t get personal please.”?

You’re such a hipster.

I have a feeling if I called you that, you would say I was personally attacking you and being rude.

Pot, meet kettle.

Hi everyone,

Please refrain from going off topic or engaging in personal flame wars. Keep the forum constructive and friendly.

Thanks for your understanding

Hydrophidian.4319:

Merthax.5172:

Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO

I’ve already demonstrated that this is not the case. It’s generally categorized as an MMO, and I provided several links in support of that.

@Creslin:

MMO and MMORPG aren’t synonymous.

You should be careful about the assumptions you make about the people you’re referring to.

Quite accurate, MMO and MMORPG are not synonyms. MMOFPS games exist, as well as some other categories, I’m sure.

DegoLocc.5976:

None of thee mentioned above are personal insults or attacks.

I don’t really want to step into the crossfire, but maybe somebody here could do with some reading up on communication styles. Personally I’d recommend Marshall Rosenberg.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Merthax.5172:

Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO

I’ve already demonstrated that this is not the case. It’s generally categorized as an MMO, and I provided several links in support of that.

@Creslin:

MMO and MMORPG aren’t synonymous.

You should be careful about the assumptions you make about the people you’re referring to.

Links that also list games such as DOTA, as MMO’s…

Hardly any proof. I going to go with what the people who made the game said. “It’s not an MMO, it’s something different, it’s a CORPG”. Which is a valid genre, which does contain other games.

Velkyn.5168:

DegoLocc.5976:

None of thee mentioned above are personal insults or attacks.

I don’t really want to step into the crossfire, but maybe somebody here could do with some reading up on communication styles. Personally I’d recommend Marshall Rosenberg.

Lol, true. We’ve already got a warning anyway. :’(

I’ll shut up now.

I do not understand why the semantics matter so much. At the end of the day these definitions are all arguable so there is no definitive end to this discussion.

Also when I log in to play the game the genre label does not matter to me. All that matters is if the game is fun and I am having a good time.

I think people are focusing their efforts on the wrong thing here.

DegoLocc.5976:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Merthax.5172:

Per common usage of the terms, GW1 is not an MMO

I’ve already demonstrated that this is not the case. It’s generally categorized as an MMO, and I provided several links in support of that.

Links that also list games such as DOTA, as MMO’s…

One of the sites I linked to does that. Doesn’t change the demonstration that Guild Wars is widely designated as an MMO.

I going to go with what the people who made the game said. “It’s not an MMO, it’s something different, it’s a CORPG”. Which is a valid genre, which does contain other games.

Okay, so have you found a list anywhere for the CORPG genre? Is there any recognition of it, outside of the title’s website, that you can point to?

And can you cite an example where the studio or publisher (which publishes only MMOs) ever explicitly stated that it’s not an MMO?

Also, thank you for reining in the personal language.

Fritz.5026:

I do not understand why the semantics matter so much. At the end of the day these definitions are all arguable so there is no definitive end to this discussion.

Also when I log in to play the game the genre label does not matter to me. All that matters is if the game is fun and I am having a good time.

I think people are focusing their efforts on the wrong thing here.

This is actually close to the underlying point of this entire exchange.

As an extreme audiophile, I’ve come to believe that genre designations ultimately don’t mean much of anything.

Hydrophidian.4319:

Okay, so have you found a list anywhere for the CORPG genre? Is there any recognition of it, outside of the title’s website, that you can point to?

As a matter of fact I have, it’s a big list, and GW1 is on it. GW2 is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperative_video_games

Not all are RPG’s granted, but there are a ton of CORPGS on there, Basically every RPG on that list is what GW1 is, a CORPG. Not an MMO like gw2.

You won’t find WOW, EQ,, UO, SWG, DAoC, or any other MMO on that list. Why I ask you, is GW1 on that list then? If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?

I think all evidence points to your theory being incorrect, once more.

GW1 never was, and never will be an MMO.

GW2 however is an MMO.

It’s so simple to grasp.

DegoLocc.5976:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Okay, so have you found a list anywhere for the CORPG genre? Is there any recognition of it, outside of the title’s website, that you can point to?

As a matter of fact I have, it’s a big list, and GW1 is on it. GW2 is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperative_video_games

That’s not a CORPG genre list. I was asking for a list that explicitly lists game under that specific genre, that explicitly includes titles based only on that qualification.

However…

“it’s a big list, and GW1 is on it. GW2 is not.”

…that, I think, has some weight to it.

DegoLocc.5976:

If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?

Again, can you point to where the studio or publisher have ever made the explicit claim that it’s not an MMO?

And you may not want to trumpet Wikipedia. It notes the genre for the game as, not only an MMO, but as an MMORPG. It also includes it in its list of MMORPGs, which I linked to up thread.

Hydrophidian.4319:

DegoLocc.5976:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Okay, so have you found a list anywhere for the CORPG genre? Is there any recognition of it, outside of the title’s website, that you can point to?

As a matter of fact I have, it’s a big list, and GW1 is on it. GW2 is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperative_video_games

That’s not a CORPG genre list. I was asking for a list that explicitly lists game under that specific genre, that explicitly includes titles based only on that qualification.

However…

“it’s a big list, and GW1 is on it. GW2 is not.”

…that, I think, has some weight to it.

You like to cut out my posts, so I will reiterate my point that was conveniently left out.

""*Not all are RPG’s granted, but there are a ton of CORPGS on there, Basically every RPG on that list is what GW1 is, a CORPG. Not an MMO like gw2.
You won’t find WOW, EQ,, UO, SWG, DAoC, or any other MMO on that list. Why I ask you, is GW1 on that list then? If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?
I think all evidence points to your theory being incorrect, once more.
GW1 never was, and never will be an MMO.
GW2 however is an MMO.
It’s so simple to grasp.*""

“If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?”

GW1 was advertised by ANet as a MMO. Wikipedia lists it as an MMO. Most gaming sites list it as an MMO. It’s becoming more and more and more you rather then “everyone”.

the question is: Who are you trying to convince ‘them’ or yourself?

Why does it matter?

Hydrophidian.4319:

DegoLocc.5976:

If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?

Again, can you point to where the studio or publisher have ever made the explicit claim that it’s not an MMO?

And you may not want to trumpet Wikipedia. It notes the genre for the game as, not only an MMO, but as an MMORPG. It also includes it in its list of MMORPGs, which I linked to up thread.

Really?
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars

“Guild Wars is a CORPG, or Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game developed for Windows by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft”

Talk about semantics from a failed debater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_online_role-playing_game

Stop using synonyms.

Also, I’ll upload the first game’s box tonight if you want more statements on it.

GADefence.5634:

“If I am wrong, the people who made the game are wrong, wiki is wrong, and you are right?”

GW1 was advertised by ANet as a MMO. Wikipedia lists it as an MMO. Most gaming sites list it as an MMO. It’s becoming more and more and more you rather then “everyone”.

Funny you must have missed the part where I linked two different pages of wiki calling it a cooperativeRPG.

On a list of cooperative games, that don’t list ANY MMO’s But there is GW1 right there on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperative_video_games

The first sentence basically sums it up here:
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars

GADefence.5634:

GW1 was advertised by ANet as a MMO.

Was it? Explicitly? Can you point to that?

""""The different genre was chosen (as opposed to the classic “Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) RPG”) """

“Different genre” was chosen “as opposed” (meaning NOT)

Hydrophidian.4319:

GADefence.5634:

GW1 was advertised by ANet as a MMO.

Was it? Explicitly? Can you point to that?

No, it wasn’t, and no he can’t.

If it said “like an MMO” on the box, that’s still not an MMO.

It all depends on the viewpoint.. in GW2 if all you do is your personal story, running to instance to instance not even looking the general chat and having no guild, avoiding people on purpose.. then yes, is not an MMO, its a single player online game.. but if you do W3 all day and play objectives with a lot of people, or just play in the outside zones… then sure its an MMO. .

same applies to GW1.. except replace W3 for guild activity.

DegoLocc.5976:

You like to cut out my posts, so I will reiterate my point that was conveniently left out.

I try to keep quotes specifically to what I’m responding to, so as to lessen the “wall of text” phenomenon you yourself have complained about. Please stop trying to insinuate that there’s some sort of sinister motive behind it.

You’ve found a list of cooperative games that includes Guild Wars, but doesn’t include many (any?) MMORPGs (or MMOs?). I acknowledged that. I also acknowledged that, even though it’s not a genre list for the “CORPG”, it does lend some weight to your argument.

If we pursue that point, though, I think it’ll lead us back to the persistent world debate.

Which ultimately leads me back to: why does that matter when contrasting the mechanics and systems of the two Guild Wars titles?

Hydrophidian.4319:

You’ve found a list of cooperative games that includes Guild Wars, but doesn’t include many (any?) MMORPGs (or MMOs?). I acknowledged that. I also acknowledged that, even though it’s not a genre list for the “CORPG”, it does lend some weight to your argument.

That’s all I wanted, I feel if you think hard on that statement you just made, and add in the whole persistent world argument as another factor, you will see the light that GW1 was not an MMO. Even if a few places online are too lazy to make more genre’s listed, or to avoid clutter just lump everything into an MMO category to keep things tidy, when in reality, it was just a cooperative roleplaying game with multiplayer tacked on with no gear progression. Still a great game though in it’s own right.

Hardly considered an MMO though, outside of the few who are misguided by those who lump everything together to make things more simple.

Guild Wars 1 wasn’t an MMORPG.

Nowadays the mixing, mutation and permutation of genres make delimitaitions between genres blurry, so you have to see the genre of a a combination of “tags”. Each tag being a very basic definition, or a ‘package’ composed of combined tags. Think of it in terms of set theory.
Each tag is a ‘set’ that can include, be included or cross other sets.

Companies may assign genres to their games, but unless they use also a ‘tag’ system, those assigned genres won’t be be precise in many situations, or be made-up, or simply untrue.
Many companies sell their games as an ‘rpg’ when they are actually an “action gear-grinder, leveler hack&slash dungeon runner” with no RPG features whatsoever.

“MMO” would not be a single tag, but a combination of several ones packed into one.
- Multiplayer: You can play with or against other players. The opposite would be singleplayer.
- Massive: You can play with so many people at the same time in the same location that you can’t track all of them. It hasn’t an opposite, but being alone or in small parties won’t be massive.
- Online. You play through an network connection. This also has an opposite, which is offline.

GW1 is multiplayer, it’s online, but it lacks the ‘massive’ part, as you will always play with very fixed parties.
Yeah, you can see many players in towns and outposts, but they are not combat areas, but social hubs.
You’d have to split massive into massive hubs and massive combat to tag GW1 as ‘massive something’. And then the broader term ‘massive’ won’t apply to it, as ‘massive hubs’ is part of ‘massive’ but not all ‘massives’ have just ‘massive hubs’.
So it was an MMO as much as, let’s say, Diablo. II or Spiral Knights.

GW2, in the other hand, can have so many players in a single area that you won’t be able to keep track of them all unless you have eidetic memory. But that’s just an exception to the rule, so it doesn’t count.
Skills will work even in cities and all. Making GW2 an actual true MMO.

I am going to sum it all up for everyone.

Guild Wars 1 is not a MMO. It is a CORPG, due to the limited players in the majority of the game areas, and the non-persistant nature of those same areas.

Guild Wars 2 is a MMO. To be more specific Guild Wars 2 is a class based MMO. It has defined classes and you can’t choose bits and pieces of skills you want.

Try to think of one “class based” MMO that did not have gear progression in it. You can’t all “class based” MMO’s have gear progression as one of their functions.

Examples of “Class based” MMO’s:

EQ, EQ2, DaoC, WAR, WoW, AoC, Lineage I and II, FFXI, TOR, GW2, etc

We had a gear progression prior to the patch and we have gear progression after the patch…. Why worry about it now.

@MithranArkanere:

I think you’re conflating MMO and MMORPG.

I do think a pretty strong argument can be made that Guild Wars actually doesn’t comfortably qualify as an MMORPG (as we commonly view the subgenre today).

But not an MMO? That’s a more difficult sell. Note that an MMO doesn’t even really need to be a game, so your point about combat isn’t relevant as a determining factor.

I personally do think it’s relevant for the more refined MMORPG tag.

But this would all lead back to the debate over the defining nature of a persistent world.

Which has nothing to do with mechanics, such as, say, for example… gear progression.

fractal.7039:

I am going to sum it all up for everyone.

Guild Wars 1 is not a MMO. It is a CORPG, due to the limited players in the majority of the game areas, and the non-persistant nature of those same areas.

Guild Wars 2 is a MMO. To be more specific Guild Wars 2 is a class based MMO. It has defined classes and you can’t choose bits and pieces of skills you want.

Try to think of one “class based” MMO that did not have gear progression in it. You can’t all “class based” MMO’s have gear progression as one of their functions.

Examples of “Class based” MMO’s:

EQ, EQ2, DaoC, WAR, WoW, AoC, Lineage I and II, FFXI, TOR, GW2, etc

We had a gear progression prior to the patch and we have gear progression after the patch…. Why worry about it now.

That is off topic with the whole progression thing, but I will bite, I agree. This game launched with gear progression, but ppl were ok with it then. Also it was made public before release ever happened that down the line the game would expand, and the level cap WOULD grow. What do you guys think is going to happen when they make level cap 90? And there is new tiers of 90 gear? Did anybody not seeing this coming? Why is everyone so shocked?

But back on topic, yes, GW1 was a great game, but it wasn’t an MMO, GW2 however is a great game and MMO.

Hydrophidian.4319:

@MithranArkanere:

I think you’re conflating MMO and MMORPG.

I do think a pretty strong argument can be made that Guild Wars actually doesn’t comfortably qualify as an MMORPG (as we commonly view the subgenre today).

But not an MMO? That’s a more difficult sell. Note that an MMO doesn’t even really need to be a game, so your point about combat isn’t relevant as a determining factor.

I personally do think it’s relevant for the more refined MMORPG tag.

But this would all lead back to the debate over the defining nature of a persistent world.

Which has nothing to do with mechanics, such as, say, for example… gear progression.

Well the only part of that argument that doesn’t sit well for me, is the broader use of the “MMO” term, is usually used to abbreviate the most popular form of MMO’s the Class based MMORPG. I know it’s splitting hairs, but I don’t look at games that aren’t games like “second life” as true MMO’s either, but more so virtual chat rooms. That in itself may be incorrect to do on my part. But I would bet there are a lot who feel the same as I.

It all goes back to what I said as laziness and lumping together a bunch of sub genres that shouldn’t even be related to each other in my opinion. Some ppl think RTS games, or games like farmville on facebook are MMO’s and they’re not, they are Online RTS games. Second Life shouldn’t be referred to as an MMO either (but it often is sadly), it should be called what it is, “a virtual chat space, online”.

Not coincidentally, I guess, GW2 is becoming more and more like the first GW, MMO or not. People are all running instances, or doing instanced PvP, the huge open world that set GW2 apart from its predecessor, left empty. People who prefer instanced gameplay might be fine with that, but people who enjoyed GW2 for its open content, not so much.

Seems to me like personal private/group instances have been killing MMOs for as long as devs have been using them. They kill the part of the game that is unique to MMOs, in favor of instanced gameplay that’s entirely possible in small scale lobby-based coop and PvP games, too.

Much like the first GW, the lobby is the big MMO city in the middle of all that instancing. Now there’s just all that dead weight that is the rest of the gameworld, too.

fractal.7039:

Try to think of one “class based” MMO that did not have gear progression in it. You can’t

Yes, I can. More than one, actually. I can also think of others that have some manner of gear progression, but don’t put any significant emphasis on it. In other words, it didn’t drive play; it wasn’t used as a draw or an anchor.

But even if I couldn’t think of such games, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

You can refine the designation all you like… MMO to MMORPG to “class based” MMORPG to “class based” fantasy MMORPG to “class based” fantasy MMORPG with rats in it. In the end, it’s still an appeal to convention/tradition…

“It’s always been done this way, so that’s the way it must always be done.”

That’s flawed reasoning.

Vertical gear progression as an anchor to drive play seems to be viewed by some as a sacred cow. The Guild Wars franchise made its mark by skewering such sacred cows.

Why should it stop now?

Vzur.7123:

Not coincidentally, I guess, GW2 is becoming more and more like the first GW, MMO or not. People are all running instances, or doing instanced PvP, the huge open world that set GW2 apart from its predecessor, left empty. People who prefer an instanced like might be fine with that, but people who enjoyed GW2 for its open content, not so much.

Seems to me like personal private/group instances have been killing MMOs for as long as devs have been using them. They kill the part of the game that is unique to MMOs, in favor of instanced gameplay that’s entirely possible in small scale lobby-based coop and PvP games.

Much like the first GW, the lobby is the big MMO city in the middle of all that instancing. Now there’s just all that dead weight that is the rest of the gameworld, too.

I’ll agree to an extent, I always prefered sandbox MMO’s to Themeparks, But GW2 as a theme park is good at making you forget it’s not a sandbox. It’s cleverly designed, and doesn’t discourage exploration, like say SWTOR does. Sharding is term used for use of many instances, and the reason it’s here today and wasn’t long ago is simply because game textures are much more detailed now, and as a result making HUGE worlds is more of a daunting load on PC’s.

As far as the worlds being empty, come transfer to “gates of madness”, I always see other people running around doing events, no matter what level zone I am in.

No one yet has explained WHY it matters whether GW1 is or is not an MMORPG?

I would describe it as a Diablo-like “action RPG” with a graphical lobby instead of a text menus for the lobby. Interestingly enough, the Diablo series is heavily based on gear progression, more so than most MMOs I’d say. Yet, if we use Diablo as the basis, GW1 deviated from that as well.

DegoLocc.5976:

Well the only part of that argument that doesn’t sit well for me, is the broader use of the “MMO” term, is usually used to abbreviate the most popular form of MMO’s the Class based MMORPG. I know it’s splitting hairs, but I don’t look at games that aren’t games like “second life” as true MMO’s either, but more so virtual chat rooms. That in itself may be incorrect to do on my part. But I would bet there are a lot who feel the same as I.

No doubt.

But this starts to get into deeper waters with questions like, what qualifies as a game?

Second Life, which, yes, is generally counted as an MMO, is not merely a virtual chat room. It puts tremendous focus on user-generated content (and, frankly, people have done some amazing things there with the tools available).

Is this type of thing relevant to the more game-centric end of the spectrum? I think it is. Have MMORPGs consistently failed to leverage this sort of thing properly? I’d say yes. To the point of usually just ignoring it outright.

I think a lot can be learned from Second Life (and the unprecedented success of an indie title like Minecraft), but too much emphasis on labels can cause those lessons to be lost.

It all goes back to what I said as laziness and lumping together a bunch of sub genres that shouldn’t even be related to each other in my opinion.

I don’t think it’s laziness, per se. It’s more to do with the evolution of a common language, and needing shorthand for concepts that would be exhausting to constantly explain in detail.

But, after a certain point of refinement, the categorization does break down. And it does get abused.

For example, I’m into electronic music. Consequently, I’m very well acquainted with the confusions, complexities and conflicts involving genre, subgenre, (sub)subgenre and artistic stylings. It can get pretty silly.

I think it can be argued that Guild Wars is a style of MMO (which I can go along with). I think it can be argued that it’s a variation of MMORPG (which I’m not so sure about). I think it can also be argued that it’s neither of these things. And I think the extent of this thread demonstrates all of that.

And that it can all be argued this thoroughly, intently and doggedly, we’ve illustrated just how unhelpful relying too heavily on these labels can be.

Merthax.5172:

No one yet has explained WHY it matters whether GW1 is or is not an MMORPG?

Good question.