Guild Wars 2

Totally agree with OPs post.

Only read the first response and stopped. I hope someone explained what persistent means.

Having come from MUDs and played EQ for over 5 years. I still feel this is the first MMO that has returned to these root and I love it.
This to me is a welcome change and I am staying here for as long as possible

Hydrophidian.4319:

Merthax.5172:

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

Good question.

I think it matters to people who like MMOs for their MMO-specific gameplay. If something is technically an MMO, but doesn’t play like an MMO for any reason, people who were looking for an MMO, might be disappointed. And express how its not really an MMO, because that’s how they feel. Even if it isn’t technically true.

Krosslite.1950:

Totally agree with OPs post.

Only read the first response and stopped. I hope someone explained what persistent means.

Having come from MUDs and played EQ for over 5 years. I still feel this is the first MMO that has returned to these root and I love it.
This to me is a welcome change and I am staying here for as long as possible

The topic was Guild Wars, not Guild Wars 2. Not sure if you knew that, your post seemed to indicate that. Hope that helps.

Obsidian.1328:

Krosslite.1950:

Totally agree with OPs post.

Only read the first response and stopped. I hope someone explained what persistent means.

Having come from MUDs and played EQ for over 5 years. I still feel this is the first MMO that has returned to these root and I love it.
This to me is a welcome change and I am staying here for as long as possible

The topic was Guild Wars, not Guild Wars 2. Not sure if you knew that, your post seemed to indicate that. Hope that helps.

Hehe my bad. Oh well

Krosslite.1950:

Totally agree with OPs post.

Only read the first response and stopped. I hope someone explained what persistent means.

Having come from MUDs and played EQ for over 5 years. I still feel this is the first MMO that has returned to these root and I love it.
This to me is a welcome change and I am staying here for as long as possible

OP was talking about Guild Wars 1, not Guild Wars 2. As we have pretty much come to the conclusion in this thread that Guild Wars 1 was not an MMORPG, but Guild Wars 2 is.

Hydrophidian.4319:

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.

For the most part yes.

And funny, I was going to use the music analogy myself with all the different sub genres, as I am into making music as well.

For instance you have your basic heavy metal, then you have other variants such as, death metal, speed metal, nu metal, sludge metal, black metal, ect ect. And heavy metal itself is a sub genre of rock. So it just gets deeper and deeper your head can start to spin after a while.

But it’s good to note that having different genres are a good thing, and it’s even more swell when new things spring up because of it, and start new genres. Which seems to happen more rarely in games.

Waar Kijk Je Naar.8713:

delmarqo.5038:

The industry considers GW1 an MMO. That’s really as far as the discussion needs to go. Everything after that is the kind of nuance-y thing no marketing person cares about

Says who? You represent “the industry”?

The industry doesn’t consider GW1 an MMO.

Yes, it does, because it is.

Guild Wars is an MMO. Deal with it.

DegoLocc.5976:

Hydrophidian.4319:

Okay, I think this has pretty much run its course.

There have been multiple challenges to the initial assertion.

Yea and you have been hard pressed to get anyone to agree with you that Guild Wars1 is an MMO. Most people in this thread point out the flaws in your reasoning, but debating with you is like talking to a brick wall.

You have the attitude of, “anyone who disagrees with me(which in this threads case is pretty much everyone) is wrong”. So the whole world is wrong? The games own developers admit it’s not an MMO, and you still try to argue that it is.

Amusing to say the least.

That’s a load of crap. Plenty of people have agreed with him.

Guild Wars is an MMO. Guild Wars 2 is an MMO.

What’s the problem?

Hydrophidian.4319:

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.

If you look up those games on those sites that you provided i bet you they are not labeled under MMO even tho they fit the defination that your describing. Which means the industry standard for defining MMO’s is either wrong or are using something else to define it that you are not aware of it. Either case your examples provided by the website are no longer valid for an axiom of logic is broken.

GW1 has a split persistent world where the Towns and overall game is persistent but the towns make up about 1% of the entire game (as shown by the exploring percentage which does not include Abaddons Realm). The trouble comes into play of what is the persistent world part referring to. If it is referring to the overall community and trading along with servers being up all the time then yes you would be correct. But if it is referring to the entire world being persistent and existing if your not online then it only holds for 1% of the entire game by logical standing does not make it persistent. But if i were to bring in other games such as Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 which by the sites you provided and along with Blizzard team statements are shown not be MMO. But the community and trading do keep going even after you logged off. So using persistent world in this since is still not applicable due to those games not being an MMO. Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 share many qualities the same to GW1 but in Diablo2 you are able to meet hundreds of people within that combat zone but yet it is not a MMO based on the sites you provided.

I can keep going with all the evidence that you provided and point out all logical errors your making. I will also state that MMO is still a broad term that they are working on defining therefor it will defer on site and a persons opinion. To use someone else’s opinion as a fact is a logical error that you are making

A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits it, and to whose state user-made changes are to some extent permanent.¹² The term is frequently used in the definition of massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of game,³ including other narrative forms of a media franchise. ~ wikipedia

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.

MMORPG is just MMO&RPG.

RPG being a game in which you take a role, and your decisions impact the story.
For example, legend of zelda is kown by many as an RPG, but it’s an action-adventure game, not an RPG, as you take on a role, but there’s no impact whatsoever from your decisions, you just follow the story, progressing through it.
On the other hand, games like Baldur’s Gate or Deus Ex are RPGs, as your decisions impact the story, and even have multiple endings.

GW1 had a little of RPG, you could see different parts of the story depending on your decisions.
Would you get Gorem now and play his quest, or later, and play a different one with Norgu? Would you follow the Kurzick or the Luxon side?
They just let you play also the other parts of the story, and the ending was always the same, making those decisions kind of irrelevant, but the decisions were still there the first time you play the story, shaping it.

A game having a persistent world is irrelevant for it being MMO, RPG, o MMORPG.
It’s just another ‘tag’. And not to be confused with ‘seamless world’.

Persistent world means that the world is still there even if there’s no characters around. It can be fully instanced or not, but either way, ‘maps’ or ‘chunks’ will be saved on their own, not per player.
GW1 didn’t have a persistent world, as areas were loaded and altered based on character quest and mission data, and events. When a player kills all the afflicted in the instances of his copy of the world, the rest will still see the afflicted until they kill them themselves.
GW2 has a persistent world in maps, between updates that reset the maps to ‘zero’ states, when players kill a creature not linked to a particular event, that creature will respawn on its own, not whenever other players come.

‘Seamless world’ means there’s no loading screens between areas, and they are loaded dynamically, making it look like it’s a single map.
There’s absolutely no game that loads and presents the entire world to the player at once, all of them split the worlds in ‘chuncks’, some just hide it better than others.

GW1 was close to an MMO, but not close enough, hubs is not enough without also “massive” combat areas. If there was massive combat areas but non-massive hubs, it could be acceptable to tag it MMO, as combat is the main part and focus of the game. It’s not a case of seeing the glass half full or half empty, as the combat areas have more weight than social hubs in this case.

Hydrophidian.4319:

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

I disagree with the third criteria.

By your definition GW1 is an MMO in spite of the fact that most players play solo (teamed with AI such as henchmen and/or heroes) in seperate instances.
According to Anet GW1 is not an MMO, but it does have (or had) a large number of concurrent users.

There should not only be a large number of concurrent users, those users should also (easily and readily be able to) simultaneously play the same content in some sort of group/team/party/zerg format (obviously not necessarily all thousands in the same group…)

Do any of you guys play mobile games by chance?
There is a pretty successful one called PocketLegends, with its two successors DarkLegends and ArcaneLegends. All of them are officially named and marketed as “mobile MMOs” or “mobile MMORPGs”, without offering any static world apart from quest/social hubs (towns), and instanced content for up to 5 players at the same time.
So in that sense they are very similar to the Diablo series or GW1, and totally claiming that MMO title, too.

MithranArkanere.8957:

RPG being a game in which you take a role, and your decisions impact the story.

Interesting how many different ideas there are about what “Role” in RPG means.

To many players their “role” is about assuming an in-game character and play-acting accordingly.

To me it is about the role that you have in combat: ie offense, defense, support, healer, melee, mage etc. Even without the Trinity different players can and do take on different roles in combat.

helladoom.4317:

MithranArkanere.8957:

RPG being a game in which you take a role, and your decisions impact the story.

Interesting how many different ideas there are about what “Role” in RPG means.

To many players their “role” is about assuming an in-game character and play-acting accordingly.

To me it is about the role that you have in combat: ie offense, defense, support, healer, melee, mage etc. Even without the Trinity different players can and do take on different roles in combat.

Nah. It’s not the same ‘role’. One involves story decisions and the character development, and the other it’s just combat mechanics.

It’s just the same word used for two different things, adding some confusion, but it’s not the same thing.
You can use expressions like ‘filling a niche’ for ‘roles’ in non-RPG games, but you can’t call a role in an actual RPG a ‘niche’, you’d use expressions like ‘acting the part’.

If there’s no “storytelling” an story choices, it’s not an RPG.

Hydrophidian.4319:

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.

I have to disagree here. The original Guild Wars was a Co-RPG, not a MMO. Firstly, the content was instanced, there was no “Massively” portion to the “Massively Multiplayer Online” game.

Secondly, regarding your claim that one game does not make a genre, I also have to disagree with this. If one game can’t make a genre, what does? Survival horror didn’t exist in any real measure before Resident Evil or Silent Hill. RPGs didn’t exist before the first (JRPG was founded on Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest, and then Final Fantasy. Ogre Battle and FF Tactics defined the SRPG Genre, though it we want to go back, it probably started with Shining Force). FPS didn’t exist before Wolfenstein, and so on.

Yes, one game can define a genre. However, Co-RPG stands for cooperative RPG, which judging the playstyle of GW1, you could include many games in. Baldur’s Gate and Icewind Dale, Diablo, Torchlight, Dungeon Siege, Titan’s Quest, and probably many others I haven’t even considered can fall into the fairly broad category of Co-RPG.

Let’s look at the one major thing that separates the original GW apart from the MMO genre in general: it has an ending. MMOs, as a loose rule, do not end. However, each campaign of GW had a solid, linear plot that had a beginning and ending, with end credits like a typical single player game or movie. MMOs don’t do this.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point. Guild Wars is not a MMO game. What it is, is one of the first forays into bringing Cooperative RPG play from the LAN to the masses, much how many online games now have hosted servers, and not local ones (and again, these are not considered MMOs).