Guild Wars 2

I like what the OP is trying to do here, but I’m not entirely on board with the way the “basics” of the combat system have been described.

To me, the basics are more accurately described as:

- Mobility
- Awareness
- Support
- Damage

Mobility: you generally want to keep moving, while denying or controlling the ability of the opponent to do the same. Which leads to…

Awareness: you should have situational awareness. You should pay attention to your surroundings and use them to your advantage, as well as watch what the opponent is doing. Which affects…

Support: Bolster your allies and/or diminish your opponent in the most advantageous way available to you.

All of the above should maximize:

- Damage: Because death is the ultimate mitigation. And it’s the only way you’re actually going to win.

The problem with the Trinity model, as I see it, is that it fuses tactic to role and does so with such rigidity that combat becomes stale and rote.

There’s nothing wrong with the tactic of “tanking”. And it’s entirely possible to use that tactic in this game (I do it all the time). But it needs to be approached as one tool in a toolbox, rather than as a function to which one must stringently adhere.

Same goes with healing. Healing is only one way to mitigate damage. People who enjoy playing support (like me) should broaden their view on how to do that.

For example, while I have a distinct preference for support, my preferred means of delivering it has always been through proactive offense (debuff and control), with healing serving only as a back-up supplement. The idea being that I don’t need to heal, if the enemy isn’t doing any damage in the first place.

Let’s get this outta the way right off the top: tedious is not synonymous with challenging. That’s a conflation a lot of gamer folk seem to routinely make.

I experienced a high level of tedium while trying to navigate Orr. Which is to say not play in Orr, but move around in Orr and get to the parts I actually wanted to play in.

I didn’t find the challenge of the zones to be all that extreme. But getting anywhere was a footslog. It was not remotely enjoyable in most cases, which is key.

Teaming with others mitigated but did not negate this issue. One is able to move through the terrain quicker with a party, but the tedious process of doing so is still there. Also, the mob density tends to put a harsher light on existing mechanical/system bugs/shortcomings. Such as, for example, the clunkiness of targeting, and the number of problems and bugs associated with underwater combat.

I found the design of Malchor’s Leap to be particularly poor. Many elements of its layout seem to have no purpose other than to waste a player’s time. That’s bad. Also, there are holes in its geometry, nonsensical placement of invisible barriers, and many spots where the terrain just seems slapdash. In short, it’s not hard to get stuck in the zone… which is also bad.

Cursed Shore, on the other hand, is, I think, the least offensive. One can get around a lot of places by being cautious and sneaky. I happen to like that, and I believe it’s the way all three zones should’ve been developed from the start.

Make situational and environmental awareness matter; create “invisible” paths of cover and concealment throughout the landscape, that no one will find unless they’re paying attention. ’Cuz that would actually be a challenge. Not unlike a giant puzzle.

Cursed Shore seems to have the lion’s share of this, with the Straits making up the difference (the Leap just appears to have a spawnpoint shoved in every nook and cranny), but I don’t have the sense that this dynamic was ever a concerted design effort.

I’d like to see the zones tweaked in this direction, and future “hazard area” zones of this type created with “giant navigational puzzle” in mind. The world is supposed to be immersive. Making terrain matter in this way would contribute to that, as well as appeal to the tactically-minded. It’d also make exploration matter. Players attracted to that sort of thing (raises hand) could end up as guides.

I understand the concept underpinning Orr, that it’s a “warzone”, that it’s supposed to be hazardous. But I believe it’s possible to evoke such an atmosphere in a zone without it having to be a chore to explore it.

I’ve now completed the Orr zones, and I don’t have any particular inclination to go back to them. I’m not alone in this. I do think that’s a problem that should be avoided in the long-term, if not addressed in the short-term.

I don’t grind. I just play the game.

Consequently, there are things in this game, things I’d like to have, that I’m not going to get anytime soon… if ever.

Yah, you can play this game and not grind. But there are aspects of it that most certainly encourage just that kind of behavior.

Serious time investment + narrow (or single) path/activity for obtainment = promotion of grind.

That formula is all over this game.

ecad.9085:

It is soo much faster and easier to level up when ur in team instead of going at it alone.

I’m in no rush. Often I want to explore alone, at my own pace, doing what I want to do when I want to do it.

Also, it’s not necessarily faster being on a team. Depends on the team.

The social experience for me is chatting with friends while we’re all doing our own thing, and then teaming up for specific activities.

My (Relevant) Gaming Background:
I started in the MUD/MUSH scene. Ultima Online was my first full-fledged MMO. I was very interested in the genre, but most offerings didn’t grab me. I’d check out a title, decide it wasn’t for me, and then move on. This routine went on for years until City of Heroes hit the scene. Friends of mine roped me in about 3-4 months after its release, and I stayed there for eight years. During that time, I still dabbled in other MMOs here and there (I played World of Warcraft for about 2 weeks), mostly out of what I guess could be called academic interest. I played Guild Wars a fair bit, but never got very deep into it, due to its shortcomings.

My (Current) Feelings About This Game:
There is a lot about the game I like. There is also a lot about the game I don’t like. Going in, I actually expected a certain degree of the latter, but ANet has recently surpassed a tolerance threshold that almost guarantees a loss of my long-term commitment.

While that’s a bit of a disappointment, I can’t complain much about the short-term. Right now, for the most part, I’m having fun. And I’ll no doubt continue to have fun for a few more months yet. From my initial investment, I’ve gotten more than my money’s worth.

If ANet would rather I stick around, though, there will have to be some changes. Targeting mechanics, and the game’s responsiveness in general, will have to be improved. The AI will also need an upgrade, so the whole ‘invulnerable’ nonsense can be done away with. And I’ll have to be provided something I can invest myself in, other than vertical progression. ‘Cuz that whole scene just don’t flick my switch.

Memnoch.2589:

^ As I said..pretty much rewards that really are worthless and doesn’t increase your power whatsoever. Here’s an example how I see it:

Brian “Hey man! Look at my new mask, what do you think?”
Jason “Not bad, what do does it do? and how long did it take to get it?”
Brian “..Well It took me a few days and it looks awesome!”
Jason “Right..but what type of benefit does it give you? Does it increase the power of your character in any way at all?”
Brian “Well it doesn’t do anything for me at all, it’s just for cosmetic purposes, but it does look good..”
Jason “So let me get this straight, you spent a few days working on getting an item that does absolutely nothing for you at all besides making you look different?”
Brian “Yeah..I guess I did.”

See the problem?

No, I don’t.

You have a particular set of preferences and motivations, and that’s fine. The thing is, not everyone shares in them. And of those who do share in them, many people prioritize them differently.

I’m an immersionist. Aesthetics directly speak to that. An item doesn’t need stat bonuses to be desirable to me. How my character looks affects my play experience, so whether or not an item is “worthless” to me is for me to determine.

Furthermore, content doesn’t need a new-more-powerful-loot reward for me to play it. That’s not a motivator, never has been. I’d rather expand the depth and breadth of a character—what’s been called “horizontal progression”—than be constantly chasing the next, best stat. I want to be able to build, create and explore in an MMO, and none of that has anything to do with constantly upgrading gear. It can actually be a detraction to all of those things.

Your preferences are not universal, and not every MMO has catered to them. Your preferences are not the sole representation of dedication or investment. People who do not share your preferences are not “lazy”, they simply are not motivated by the same things you are.

1. I do not like to PVE.
0 – Disagree.

2. I do not have any level 80 characters.
0 – Disagree. I presently have 2. The next in line is at level 48.

3. I do not like to WvW.
0 – Disagree.

4. I do not PVP.
0 – Disagree. Though sPvP holds no interest for me.

5. I only play sPVP
0 – Disagree, obviously.

6. I’m poor.
0 – Disagree. I’d argue that anyone who can pay 60 bucks for a video game isn’t really poor.

7. I don’t have full exotics.
1 – Agree. I’ll get around to it, I’m in no rush.

8. I do not have world completion.
1 – Agree. I’ll get around to it, I’m in no rush. Ironically, focusing on world completion can cause one to miss a lot of the world.

9. I do not want a legendary weapon.
1 – Agree. I have no particular desire for any of the Legendary items at this time. That may change when new ones are introduced.

10. I live in a communist or socialist country.
0 – I don’t, but this question is irrelevant.

11. I’m a slow leveler.
? – What’s a “slow leveler”? I don’t play one character exclusively, if that’s what you mean.

12. I bought my gear with a Credit card.
0 – Disagree. I won’t pay money for anything that’s obtainable in-game.

0 across the board.

Vertical progression isn’t necessarily a problem, until it becomes the central (or sole) focus behind “end game” (I loathe that term) play. Then it creates all sorts of issues.

I’m waiting to see what happens. If future content isn’t balanced around this new tier, and/or if multiple paths are introduced to obtain it, my game won’t really be impacted at all.

Favorite race? It depends.

I have: 1 Sylvari, 1 Norn, 1 Charr, and 2 Humans (with a 3rd waiting in the wings).

Looking at it that way, I’d have to say Human.

On the other hand, the Norn have drawn me in the most, overall. At first, I wasn’t even terribly interested in them, but once I started playing one, I got hooked.

If we expand out from player races, my fave is the Skritt. Asura do nothing for me, but that’s purely to do with personal tastes. I think they’re quite distinctive, and I’ve recommended them to people who I’ve thought would dig ’em.

Favorite Profession: Mechanically, I find the Engineer to be the most compelling, because of its flexibility. But all my characters play differently, so it’s depends on what I’m in the mood for. My Elementalist is still my default, though I do think she’s had a very narrow path to viability. Consequently, the playstyle can get a little dull if I keep with it for too long.

I can’t play a Nercomancer. The graphics and audio grate on me too much.

lenpup.3765:

Sure, you can say “Hey you still have your precursor.” But the point is that I busted my butt to make that happen, and overnight it became nigh trivial.

That’s where you took a big chance, and you got burned.

Yah, it really sucks. I’ve been there. I experienced a similar sort of thing many years ago. Ever since then, I’ve had a standing policy not to grind.

I will work towards a goal only as long as I have fun doing so. When it stops being fun, I stop doing it. If that means it’ll take me months to reach it, or a possibility that I’ll never reach it at all, so be it. I’d rather it be that than being heartsick over a tremendous effort wasted, because a bar was lowered.

And bars always get lowered. I’ve noticed that, over time, MMOs tend to get more accommodating in a variety of ways.

So, yah, it can be a nasty blow to enthusiasm, and one that lingers. But, trust me, that’ll pass. The sting will fade. My advice for the future would be: always make your enjoyment the first priority for a game experience. Only do what’s rewarding to do. That way, if things are changed, you’ll have no regrets. Your time will not have been wasted, because, at the very least, you had fun.

Hope this helps.

Galen Grey.4709:

If people issued a public appology each time something they work on doesnt work 100% as intended everyone would be busy appologizing 24/7

I’m sorry, but I find this to be a bit ridiculous.

This wasn’t a situation where there were just a couple of kinks. It was a mess. It was all sorts of broken from start to finish.

I tried to participate on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I was met with broken content each and every time. Due to this, there was practically nothing I was able to complete. This event was implemented in stunningly poor condition.

This is not a new studio, and this was not this team’s first rodeo. If something’s going to be only available for a (very) limited time, they should know by now that they have to make doubly-certain that it works.

The event was rolled out in an unplayable state, and a lot of time was wasted as a result. That is most assuredly something they should be apologizing for. And the lack of that apology has not gone unnoticed by me.

After the holiday we’ll be doing a number of community Q&As and live community conferences where you can ask us questions and get the down-low on how we are evolving the world of Tyria

I am very much looking forward to this.

Here’s a general rundown of what we are working towards over the upcoming months:

Revamping all of our existing dungeons (Story and Explorable versions) through rebalance and overhauled encounters.

Meh. Okay.

Adding new dungeons to the Fractal of the Mists.

Meh.

Adding more variation to creatures, enhancing our open world scaling system, as well as evolving many events and experiences across Tyria.

Yay!

Fixing and improving existing content throughout the game, and better tying it into the overall sense of player progression within Guild Wars 2.

Yay!

Building on the Southsun Cove’s persistent content.

Ehhhh. Kay.

Adding new Guild content and Guild progression features.

Hooray! \o/

Continuing to evolve PvP into an E-sport

Meh.

Adding brand new content to World vs. World as well as adding new reward progression.

Yay!

Continuing to build upon the story and adventures of Guild Wars 2.

Hooray! \o/

Merthax.5172:

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

Good question.

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.

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?

@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.

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?

GADefence.5634:

GW1 was advertised by ANet as a MMO.

Was it? Explicitly? Can you point to that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Here’s the basic exchange I’ve seen many times in recent days:

“I wish GW2 approached gear in the same was as Guild Wars.”
“But Guild Wars is not a MMO!”

After the debate in this thread, here’s what I think that exchange has become:

“I wish GW2 approached gear in the same was as Guild Wars.”
“But Guild Wars lacks a persistent world!”

…Does that seem nonsensical to you? ’Cuz it seems nonsensical to me.

DegoLocc.5976:

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.

Oh, the irony.

Did you read the rest of the post to which you just responded? … Apparently not.

You have the attitude of, “anyone who disagrees with me(which in this threads case is pretty much everyone) is wrong”.

You need to improve your surveillance techniques or something. Or maybe you put your spy cameras on the wrong house.

This makes the fourth time in this thread that you’ve tried to attribute something disparaging to me. Is this the only dialogue setting you have? Do you even know what argumentum ad hominem is?

The games own developers admit it’s not an MMO, and you still try to argue that it is.

So you’ve said. Repeatedly. Except I addressed that very point in the initial post. And then multiple times afterward.

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)? And shouldn’t you be able to do this without repeatedly citing your own ‘amusement’ as if it means anything?

In any event, you’re now completely missing the point.

Based on the argument that has unfolded, the assertion that GW1 is not an MMO is predicated almost entirely on the idea that its social hubs don’t qualify as a persistent world.

So, how does this relate to the game systems? What does a persistent world, or lack thereof, have to do with vertical gear progression?

Are you capable of providing a response without being snide and insulting? At this point, I gotta say, I kinda have my doubts.

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

There have been multiple challenges to the initial assertion.

They’ve pretty much all fixated on the weakest point of the argument: whether or not Guild Wars qualifies as a persistent world. Note that I admitted this was the weakest point in the original post.

It can be argued that it does qualify. It can be argued that the game’s hub locations were actually the entirety of the world, because they represented the only persistent environment; everything else was instanced. And just because the Guild Wars “world” is small (comparatively), doesn’t mean it’s not an MMO.

Also, many MMOs have both persistent environments and instanced content, including GW2. So having both doesn’t take Guild Wars out of the category, either. Is it the ratio that matters? Some have said yes.

Lasting user influence on world state has also been cited as a relevant factor. This has some weight. But it’s undermined by the fact that such lasting influence only applies to a very narrow selection of games (and Guild Wars 2 ain’t one of ’em).

Bottom line, I think it’s been pretty well revealed that the claim “Guild Wars is not an MMO!” is predicated almost entirely on the idea that it’s not a persistent world (the difference is made up by the CORPG argument, which I’d say I shot in the head in the first post).

So now I ask: what does persistent world have to do with vertical gear progression?

My answer is: absolutely nothing.

Can we now agree on that, maybe?

Technically, it seems to me that Guild Wars qualifies as an MMO (if only barely). Personally, I’ve never really approached it that way. Years ago, back when the game first came out, I was told, ’it’s an MMORPG that you don’t have to play like an MMORPG,’ and that still seems like a fair description to me. It had a massive player base, guilds, team play, and an immersive environment in which I progressed a character… y’know, much like GW2.

Even though I largely ignored its social element, the experience, at its core, was much the same. So does it really matter what anyone calls it? We’re obviously dealing with a lot of the same fundamental ideas in both cases.

Anyway, thanks for participating in this little experimental interlude. Have a good night.

Kana.6793:

I know nothing about City of Heroes, I have never played it, nor do I care to.

That doesn’t answer the questions. The bulk of its content was instanced. Its maximum team size (until late in its life) was 8. Was it not an MMO?

The size of the shared space is relevent when classifying it as massively multiplayer

No, it isn’t. There is no size requirement for the shared space.

I did not say that size has an bearing on a persistent world nor did I mention combat.

Which is why asked.

I said that throughout the majority of the game you are placed in a private instance which no longer exists when your party logs out. That is not a persistent world.

Strawman. It’s already been acknowledged numerous times that the majority of the game is not persistent. However, a part of it is. Hence, it qualifies.

Even the towns are not necessarily persistent since new districts are generated based on the number of people trying to access them. Those districts no longer exist after the users have logged out and demand falls.

This is standard architecture for MMOs of all sorts, including GW2 (overflow). Is GW2 now not an MMO?

Roven Leafsong.8917:

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?

Maybe. How broadly does one define ‘influence the state of the world’ and ‘lasting fashion’ and how would that differ from the dynamics of the persistent spaces of other existing MMOs? Frankly, the only game I’ve played that gave me the ability to have a lasting influence on world state is UO.

And yes, it’s a very inclusive genre category… almost to the point of being meaningless. Which is much the case with many such umbrella designations across all forms of media.

That’s actually part of why I started this thread.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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:

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:

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.”

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.

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.

DegoLocc.5976:

gw1 was not an MMO

Ah, here it is again.

Guild Wars is indeed an MMO. It meets the fundamental criteria:
- Hosted, online
- Persistent world (yes, the hubs count, sorry)
- Large number of concurrent users (thousands or more)

The website for the title 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.

Furthermore, the industry has considered it an MMO (and an MMORPG). Game journalists have routinely referred to it as an MMO (and an MMORPG), and such quotes from those journalists can be found on the title’s website.

Guild Wars was marketed as a Cooperative Online Roleplaying Game in order to distinguish it from many of the common conventions of the MMORPG subgrenre (not MMOs in general). “CORPG” is not a separate genre, because one title does not a genre make. But even if it were a genre, it would be a counted as a subgenre of the MMO genre category.

MMO and MMORPG are not synonymous. I made a lengthy post about this very subject a couple of days ago.

But even if, after all this, you still want to claim that “Guild Wars is not an MMO”, that does not preclude the translation of its gear model to the MMORPG genre.

As for the design element of vertical gear progression (VGP), there have been many MMORPGs, past and present, that have either not had this element or did not make this element central to the design. The enhancement system of City of Heroes would barely qualify. It did not drive play or serve as a draw, as a “traditional” VGP is expected to do. Ultima Online didn’t have VGP for many years, nor did, I’m given to understand, Dark Age of Camelot.

What’s interesting about these particular titles, though, is that they all added VGP later in their development, and it was considered by many to be a mistake in all three cases. It certainly didn’t have any notable effects on their numbers.

Anarchy Online still, to my knowledge, does not have VGP. Does EVE? I’m not certain about that one. Don’t think The Secret World has it. In any case, over the past 20 years, there have been literally hundreds of MMORPG titles. I’m sure quite a few without VGP can be found.

Is VGP a common convention of the genre? Yes, especially since the rise of World of Warcraft. But convention is not the same thing as fundamental attribute.

Jski.6180:

True but your looking for it non the less. To make a game that just hands you every thing will be dead with in a month that why there are no more games like that other then the 6hr story games and even they have some build in “work for something.”

I played a game for 8 years that didn’t subscribe to this mentality. When I maxed out a character, got the build to where I wanted it, that character was done. I then went and did other things. Like, for example, making a new character (I had 36 of them by the time it was all over). I also built a guild, I designed in-game spaces, I PvPed, I played the market, collected titles, wrote content, and roleplayed.

In 8 years, my main was “upgraded” twice, and those weren’t even entirely vertical upgrades.

The mentality you’re describing just isn’t universal.