Why do so many people think Guild Wars is an MMORPG?

[Schadenfroh]

I just don?t get it, does having multiplayer capabilities now make a role playing game a massive multiplayer online game now?

I mean... even the devs of Guild Wars say that it is not an MMORPG:

Text

Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game).

But yet, it seems that everyone seems to think that it is an MMORPG.....

 

[Noema]

For the same reason many people called Metroid Prime a first person shooter...

Most people don't know any better...and it's easier for them to pigeon-hole games into categories they don't quite understand. "ZOMG it's an RPG and it's online...it must be an MMORPG!!!1one".

 

[PseudoKnight]

Because it's massive, multiplayer, online, and a role-playing game. Just because everything is instanced doesn't mean it's not an MMO. That said, it's not totally appropriate to compare it to something like WoW. They are aiming for different experiences. This is why they choose not to call it a MMORPG, not because it's not really one.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
Because it's massive, multiplayer, online, and a role-playing game. Just because everything is instanced doesn't mean it's not an MMO. That said, it's not totally appropriate to compare it to something like WoW. They are aiming for different experiences. This is why they choose not to call it a MMORPG, not because it's not really one.

The thing is that the industry already has fixed standarts and conditions by which a game is set into a certain category. MMO is one of them, and this tag has emerged after the games the set those standars...namely UO and Everquest. They both have something in common and that is the 'yardstick' if you will, against which one is to judge whether a game is an MMO or not. In this case, this lowest common denominator is a persistent world. After all, it's hard to judge how 'massively multiplayer' a game has to be in order for it to be considered an MMO. Since Guild Wars doesn't really have a persisten world, it doesn't carry the MMO tag. Which is a good thing, really, because it would be misleading to do so, as it does feel different from 'real' (in so far as they have a persistent world) MMOs.

Same thing with Metroid Prime. It's in first person. You shoot things. Is it a first person shooter? Not really, because it breaks with many industry conventions regarding what a FPS should be like. Again, calling Metroid Prime a FPS would be incredibly misleading, because it has more to do with Zelda or the 2-D Metroids than with Doom 3.

So all this tags and categories are artificial. but they do serve a purpose, at least until something else new comes along and breaks them.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
Because it's massive, multiplayer, online, and a role-playing game. Just because everything is instanced doesn't mean it's not an MMO. That said, it's not totally appropriate to compare it to something like WoW. They are aiming for different experiences. This is why they choose not to call it a MMORPG, not because it's not really one.

But it's not a massive multiplayer game. Big virtual chat rooms (the cities) does not "massive multiplayer" make. It is no more an MMO than Diablo II.

 

[PseudoKnight]

I wholeheartedly disagree. It is unecessary to create a new genre to describe what is already an MMORPG. Just because it doesn't have all the elements of the standard MMORPG, doesn't mean it is not one. Some MMOs that already have the same instanced behavior as Guild Wars are already described as MMOs. This standard includes games like GuildWars. And I don't think you can argue too much on the RPG part beyond calling it an action RPG.

datalink, reducing Guild Wars down to virtual chat rooms is a faulty argument. There are many gameplay mechanics within these so-called "chat rooms". All these gameplay mechanics are common in both RPGs and MMOs.

So, if you want to call it different from other MMOs, go ahead, but it is one.

[edit]

After some consideration, I think it would be best to consider it a sort of hybrid mostly due to it's partial persistent nature. (ie. you can't run into other groups in PvE, though not a drawback for many) It seems both technically correct and could resolve this argument.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is unecessary to create a new genre to describe what is already an MMORPG. Just because it doesn't have all the elements of the standard MMORPG, doesn't mean it is not one.

It isn't considered an MMO because it has NO elements of what sets an MMO apart from a standard RPG. The difference is being massively multiplayer. That is the only thing that makes a game an MMO. There is also UMMOs, which are a whole nother level of population. GW allows for only 8 players to play together. That is pretty standard for online play with RPG's. It's just a standard RPG.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Noema
For the same reason many people called Metroid Prime a first person shooter...

Most people don't know any better...and it's easier for them to pigeon-hole games into categories they don't quite understand. "ZOMG it's an RPG and it's online...it must be an MMORPG!!!1one".

Metroid Prime is more FPS than Guild Wars is MMORPG.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Noema
For the same reason many people called Metroid Prime a first person shooter...

Most people don't know any better...and it's easier for them to pigeon-hole games into categories they don't quite understand. "ZOMG it's an RPG and it's online...it must be an MMORPG!!!1one".

Metroid Prime is more FPS than Guild Wars is MMORPG.

Michael Jackson is more a womanizing stud than Metroid Prime is a FPS.

 

[Ichigo]

Why do you CARE? This isn't some huge issue, unless you're a WOW fanboy or something. Think about it. Does it MATTER? Does it change your gameplay experience?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is unecessary to create a new genre to describe what is already an MMORPG. Just because it doesn't have all the elements of the standard MMORPG, doesn't mean it is not one.

It isn't considered an MMO because it has NO elements of what sets an MMO apart from a standard RPG. The difference is being massively multiplayer. That is the only thing that makes a game an MMO. There is also UMMOs, which are a whole nother level of population. GW allows for only 8 players to play together. That is pretty standard for online play with RPG's. It's just a standard RPG.

Totally agree.

 

[notfred]

How the heck is Metroid Prime not an FPS?

Yes, it's RPG-ish, and Zelda-ish in many ways, but it's still first person, and you shoot things. If Metriod Prime isn't an FPS, then neither is Half-Life.

 

[BigPoppa]

Just drop an M. Multiplayer online role-playing game. If GW is massive, then so is neverwinter nights, etc.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is unecessary to create a new genre to describe what is already an MMORPG. Just because it doesn't have all the elements of the standard MMORPG, doesn't mean it is not one.

It isn't considered an MMO because it has NO elements of what sets an MMO apart from a standard RPG. The difference is being massively multiplayer. That is the only thing that makes a game an MMO. There is also UMMOs, which are a whole nother level of population. GW allows for only 8 players to play together. That is pretty standard for online play with RPG's. It's just a standard RPG.

I disagree that the "only" thing that defines an MMO is being massively multiplayer. If it does then ATOT is an MMO.

Just because that is part of the label, doesn't mean it describes all of the differences, or even that it tells you which differences are most significant.

Additionally, as far as I konw all the games that are called MMO's have limitations on just how fully they realize the concept. Is there any game that has a truly persistent world ? When a monster dies in WOW, does the body stay there until someone buries it ? In my experience in the free trial of WOW, there was an endless respawning of the same monsters, this is not a persistent world. At least in GW when I kill a Charr he stays dead as long as I'm in the same instance, to this extent GW is more persistent. If I cut a tree down in EQ, will the stump be there forever ? Can I cut down a tree ? I don't point these out to say there's anything wrong with WOW or EQ, but to point out that there is no game, yet, with a complete realization of a persistent world, or complete massive multiplayer interaction; so saying one game qualifies and another doesn't is kind of facetious, since NO game completely qualifies.

The limitations of the persistent world in GW are somewhat different, but it is a kind of persistent and evolving world. It is evolving in that there is an underlying world, which can have content added or removed, and ai behavior changed on an ongoing basis. There are even parts of the world that are controlled to some extent by players, and the new chapter, GW:Factions sounds like it will greatly increase the role of players in controlling what happens in the persistent world.

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Why do you CARE? This isn't some huge issue, unless you're a WOW fanboy or something. Think about it. Does it MATTER? Does it change your gameplay experience?

Exactly what I was thinking. Who the f*** cares?

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Why do you CARE? This isn't some huge issue, unless you're a WOW fanboy or something. Think about it. Does it MATTER? Does it change your gameplay experience?

Exactly what I was thinking. Who the f*** cares?

I care. Oh, wait a minute, on second thought I don't give a crap. Carry on.

 

[HN]

I was more angry about HalfLife being pigeonholed as an FPS back in the day. I'd say it's more of a MCPOVAAE, you know...a Main Character's Point of View Action Adventure Experience. this is a new genre that it spawned and all others after it should have been labelled that rather than the typical run and gun FPS. My crusade to have this rectified was futile.


yes, this was sarcastic.

 

[theMan]

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Why do you CARE? This isn't some huge issue, unless you're a WOW fanboy or something. Think about it. Does it MATTER? Does it change your gameplay experience?

Exactly what I was thinking. Who the f*** cares?

beat me to it.

 

[shortylickens]

I wonder how many of you geniuses think Diablo, Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire are Role-Playng Games.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: PseudoKnight
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is unecessary to create a new genre to describe what is already an MMORPG. Just because it doesn't have all the elements of the standard MMORPG, doesn't mean it is not one.

It isn't considered an MMO because it has NO elements of what sets an MMO apart from a standard RPG. The difference is being massively multiplayer. That is the only thing that makes a game an MMO. There is also UMMOs, which are a whole nother level of population. GW allows for only 8 players to play together. That is pretty standard for online play with RPG's. It's just a standard RPG.

I disagree that the "only" thing that defines an MMO is being massively multiplayer. If it does then ATOT is an MMO.

Just because that is part of the label, doesn't mean it describes all of the differences, or even that it tells you which differences are most significant.

Additionally, as far as I konw all the games that are called MMO's have limitations on just how fully they realize the concept. Is there any game that has a truly persistent world ? When a monster dies in WOW, does the body stay there until someone buries it ? In my experience in the free trial of WOW, there was an endless respawning of the same monsters, this is not a persistent world. At least in GW when I kill a Charr he stays dead as long as I'm in the same instance, to this extent GW is more persistent. If I cut a tree down in EQ, will the stump be there forever ? Can I cut down a tree ? I don't point these out to say there's anything wrong with WOW or EQ, but to point out that there is no game, yet, with a complete realization of a persistent world, or complete massive multiplayer interaction; so saying one game qualifies and another doesn't is kind of facetious, since NO game completely qualifies.

The limitations of the persistent world in GW are somewhat different, but it is a kind of persistent and evolving world. It is evolving in that there is an underlying world, which can have content added or removed, and ai behavior changed on an ongoing basis. There are even parts of the world that are controlled to some extent by players, and the new chapter, GW:Factions sounds like it will greatly increase the role of players in controlling what happens in the persistent world.

You've still failed to explain how 8 players = Massively Multiplayer

 

[Dumac]

Well they ARE classified as RPGs by the gaming industry.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I wonder how many of you geniuses think Diablo, Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire are Role-Playng Games.

By the traditional definition of RPG, they are, whether you like it or not.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Noema
For the same reason many people called Metroid Prime a first person shooter...

Most people don't know any better...and it's easier for them to pigeon-hole games into categories they don't quite understand. "ZOMG it's an RPG and it's online...it must be an MMORPG!!!1one".

^ What he said.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: theman

Originally posted by: supafly

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Why do you CARE? This isn't some huge issue, unless you're a WOW fanboy or something. Think about it. Does it MATTER? Does it change your gameplay experience?

Exactly what I was thinking. Who the f*** cares?

beat me to it.

You all obviously care plenty, or you wouldn't have posted.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I wonder how many of you geniuses think Diablo, Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire are Role-Playng Games.

By the traditional definition of RPG, they are, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps by YOUR traditional definition. Because you are so used to calling them RPGs.

But please enlighten me, what is THE tradional definition?