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

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't really believe it's proveable, one way or the other it's just opinions, not a fact.

It is a fact GW is not an MMO. There have been several non-MMO's support multiplayer with upwards of even 120 people. They are not MMO's though.

It isn't a fact, you are just the kind of person who doesn't accept their opinions aren't facts.

It isn't a matter of opinion. It's like saying it's your opinion the sky is green. Guildwars is NOT an MMO. It's not massively multiplayer. Only 8 people can play with each other. It'd be like saying Diablo was an MMO. The developers don't call it an MMO either. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Game categories have nothing to do with opinion. That is the most ridiculous arguement I've ever heard.

Sometimes the sky IS green. And more than 8 people can play with each other, your just wrong about that.

And who gets to decide what mmo means ? You think it means lots of people all playing at the same time ? well, no game does this all the time, so by your definition there are no mmos.

If you have a good enough reason, you can convince me to change my mind. But just repeating over over that GW is not an MMO because you say so, that is what is ridiculous.

You could start with a more precise definition of what an MMO is, in your mind ? And then what games qualify given the criteria you've established.

But you don't have the right to impose your criteria on the rest of humanity, or anyone else's criteria either, just because they or you say it is so.

Guild Wars really isn't a MMORPG. Get rid of the first M and then you have a better description of Guild Wars. I consider it a MORPG - Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. It's a refined Diablo 2 (should be fairly obvious too as some of the people who worked on Blizzard's Battle.net went and started work on Guild Wars).

Some things you just can't do in Guild Wars that you can do in other traditional MMORPGs. For example, you can't have a 120-man raid attacking the opposing faction's main city in Guild Wars. I don't run into other people I know throughout the game world in Guild Wars. There really isn't that much interaction with other players in Guild Wars (when compared with the traditional MMORPGs). The main attraction for player interaction in Guild Wars is its PVP content (and the occasional group partying).

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BDawg
So, how does Guild Wars work? My complaint about the MMOs I've played is that I'd have to work with others to accomplish goals. I just don't have the time to form parties and then play.

Can I play single play in Guild Wars?

There is almost NO profitable single play in guild wars. If you don't like grouping, then this is not the game for you. It offers little to no solo experience.

As far as GW being an MMO, I do not consider it as one. The game designers do not really consider it one. It is not massively multiplayer and it is based on different things than a "typical" mmo.

I bought GW thinking it was a "typical" MMO, then was a little suprised at what I got.

Either way, MMO or not, the game is pretty lame.

My good buddy got my first GW account when I went over to WoW. He has played it through to the end with only a few quests with other people. He has more plat than he cares to own and has ascended fully. So... don't give me poo about it not being able to be solo'd for the majority.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: DPmaster
Guild Wars really isn't a MMORPG. Get rid of the first M and then you have a better description of Guild Wars. I consider it a MORPG - Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. It's a refined Diablo 2 (should be fairly obvious too as some of the people who worked on Blizzard's Battle.net went and started work on Guild Wars).

Some things you just can't do in Guild Wars that you can do in other traditional MMORPGs. For example, you can't have a 120-man raid attacking the opposing faction's main city in Guild Wars. I don't run into other people I know throughout the game world in Guild Wars. There really isn't that much interaction with other players in Guild Wars (when compared with the traditional MMORPGs). The main attraction for player interaction in Guild Wars is its PVP content (and the occasional group partying).

Aye but you can't really equate your personal experience to make a definition or comment about player interaction without it coming off as a stereotype. I see a lot of the same people. I don't group with them, but I notice them. I interact with them in the same way I did people in WoW. So my experience can cancel out yours and visa versa. What we are left with is the game world has a different take on a sharded system. It is more like Never Winter Nights meets Everquest. No its not overly loot driven or player made content oriented. The PvE could have stood on its own in a single player game... but that ofc is not what they envisioned. No they don't consider it an MMO but ... if a massive amount of people can stand in one area and PvP each other in small groups... splitting hairs on what an MMO is could be a hard task. I say it is, you say it's not. Pot-A-to ... Pot-ah-to.

 

[jdport]

If guildwars isn't an MMO then DDO isn't either. They are the exact same model, yet people still call DDO an MMO... /boggle.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
This could very well be the nerdiest topic ever made

I cant believe someone whos been on AT longer than me would actually say that. 😉

EDIT: For reference, I still think its the Babylon5 vs. Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument.
OH MY GAWD! You've never seen so many nerds fight so hard in one place.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Tom
Guild Wars has a persistent world, with some exceptions. The same thing is true of all mmos, there is no game with a truly persistent world.

The world isn't persistent at all actually. You can go back in the storyline at any time. Nothing changes.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Tom
And who gets to decide what mmo means ? You think it means lots of people all playing at the same time ? well, no game does this all the time, so by your definition there are no mmos.

If you have a good enough reason, you can convince me to change my mind. But just repeating over over that GW is not an MMO because you say so, that is what is ridiculous.

You could start with a more precise definition of what an MMO is, in your mind ? And then what games qualify given the criteria you've established.

But you don't have the right to impose your criteria on the rest of humanity, or anyone else's criteria either, just because they or you say it is so.

You are so clueless it's scary. I've said it a billion times and yet you still can't comprehend such a simple statement. Guildwars is not massively multiplayer, therefore cannot be considered an MMO. You do know what MMO stands for, right?

Read this

Maybe then you'll figure it out. I've been in the MMO biz for nearly 10 years, so as a matter of fact I can and will impose any criteria I see fit. I've been on development crews for both MUDs and MMOG's, I've worked at major fansites, and I've played literally hundreds of MMO's, including some that have never seen the light of day. I don't want to toot my horn, but apparently you need some kind of justification for what I'm saying. I am telling you right now, if anyone in this thread can tell you what an MMO is, I can.

 

[AbAbber2k]

A 3D graphical server lobby does NOT an MMO make. GW and DDO are not massively multiplayer because of their complete reliance on INSTANCING. Can we at least agree that Diablo/D2 are not MM? Then what if the Battle.NET server was represented graphically as a city (say Tristram/Rogue Encampment). Would Diablo/2 suddenly be considered an MMO? Persistance IS a pre-requisite. Just because MMORPG doesn't have "Persistent World" anywhere in the acronym doesn't mean that doesn't come with it.

 

[akenbennu]

I've been playing GW for about a month, and it's really more of a graphical MUD. The world is semi persistent, as there are specific quests/plot points that advance the story (as in you have to do x before y will happen.) Also, you aren't required to group with other players; you can grab NPC henchmen for most of the missions. (Keeping them alive is another story, the AI isn't the greatest.) Very little interaction with the NPCs, aside from getting quests, so it isn't all that free form in terms of what you can do.

It's relatively entertaining, if you go in expecting a lot of hack and slash (at least PvE. I haven't really done any PvP stuff yet.) The skill system is nice, as it forces a little more strategy into things that picking the same powers over and over again. Equipment helps, but isn't the end all/be all for the charater.

 

[Hav0k99]

My fanboi detector is off the heezy!

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BDawg
So, how does Guild Wars work? My complaint about the MMOs I've played is that I'd have to work with others to accomplish goals. I just don't have the time to form parties and then play.

Can I play single play in Guild Wars?

There is almost NO profitable single play in guild wars. If you don't like grouping, then this is not the game for you. It offers little to no solo experience.

As far as GW being an MMO, I do not consider it as one. The game designers do not really consider it one. It is not massively multiplayer and it is based on different things than a "typical" mmo.

I bought GW thinking it was a "typical" MMO, then was a little suprised at what I got.

Either way, MMO or not, the game is pretty lame.

You can play the entire campaign in guild Wars, with no human players other than yourself.

Except for pvp, which obviously requires other people or it wouldn't BE pvp, just about everything in GW can be done alone or with AI henchmen making up the party.

I know that the entire campaign can be played alone, I was just saying it isn't profitable to do so. You can replace party members with henchmen, but they are usually inadequate. And plus, if you have henchman, you aren't really by yourself are you? By single play, I meant soloing.

And to hooflung, soloing all of GW is so tedious and annoying that it is nearly impossible for a normal gamer to do. I doubt he solo'd the entire game though. Some of the later missions needs a party, otherwise it would be nearly impossible to do them.

Btw, nice thorw in of the word poo.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BDawg
So, how does Guild Wars work? My complaint about the MMOs I've played is that I'd have to work with others to accomplish goals. I just don't have the time to form parties and then play.

Can I play single play in Guild Wars?

There is almost NO profitable single play in guild wars. If you don't like grouping, then this is not the game for you. It offers little to no solo experience.

As far as GW being an MMO, I do not consider it as one. The game designers do not really consider it one. It is not massively multiplayer and it is based on different things than a "typical" mmo.

I bought GW thinking it was a "typical" MMO, then was a little suprised at what I got.

Either way, MMO or not, the game is pretty lame.

You can play the entire campaign in guild Wars, with no human players other than yourself.

Except for pvp, which obviously requires other people or it wouldn't BE pvp, just about everything in GW can be done alone or with AI henchmen making up the party.

I know that the entire campaign can be played alone, I was just saying it isn't profitable to do so. You can replace party members with henchmen, but they are usually inadequate. And plus, if you have henchman, you aren't really by yourself are you? By single play, I meant soloing.

And to hooflung, soloing all of GW is so tedious and annoying that it is nearly impossible for a normal gamer to do. I doubt he solo'd the entire game though. Some of the later missions needs a party, otherwise it would be nearly impossible to do them.

Btw, nice thorw in of the word poo.

he has played all of 2 missions with people besides me and a friend on our lowbies.... he is an engaged 24 year old thats is taking online classes at the university while his fiance is at work. Needless to say... he playes 6 or so hours a day. Then again... he doesn't play as much since he completed teh storyline and doesn't pvp.

I R teh l337 flinger o' poox0rx!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Tom
And who gets to decide what mmo means ? You think it means lots of people all playing at the same time ? well, no game does this all the time, so by your definition there are no mmos.

If you have a good enough reason, you can convince me to change my mind. But just repeating over over that GW is not an MMO because you say so, that is what is ridiculous.

You could start with a more precise definition of what an MMO is, in your mind ? And then what games qualify given the criteria you've established.

But you don't have the right to impose your criteria on the rest of humanity, or anyone else's criteria either, just because they or you say it is so.

You are so clueless it's scary. I've said it a billion times and yet you still can't comprehend such a simple statement. Guildwars is not massively multiplayer, therefore cannot be considered an MMO. You do know what MMO stands for, right?

Read this

Maybe then you'll figure it out. I've been in the MMO biz for nearly 10 years, so as a matter of fact I can and will impose any criteria I see fit. I've been on development crews for both MUDs and MMOG's, I've worked at major fansites, and I've played literally hundreds of MMO's, including some that have never seen the light of day. I don't want to toot my horn, but apparently you need some kind of justification for what I'm saying. I am telling you right now, if anyone in this thread can tell you what an MMO is, I can.

It isn't a question of figuring it out. And I don't believe I've said I don't respect your opinion, what I've said is I don't consider your opinion to be a fact.

Not because you're opinion is wrong, although I may disagree with you, but because it is not something that can be a fact, for most of the games that people are talking about when they talk about mmos. When you have a situation where all of the candidates only meet some of the criteria, some of the time, then it is a matter of opinion which ones get categorized by a particlular person.

You want to give a great deal of weight to the phrase "massively multi-player"; I do not give it as much weight. It is only one of many factors that define this genre of gaming, it happens to be a catchy phrase and so it has become the acronym for a particular type of online game. The reason I don't see it as THE critical aspect of the genre is because it is largely an unworkable idea that you can have dozens or hundreds of human beings all agreeing to play a game as it is intended, and stay in character, on a regular basis. Even games that have the mechanics to do this, only acheive a satisfying realization occasionally, not all the time.

I think a much more important aspect of these kinds of games, that differentiates them from other online games, is they are designed from the outset to have content added on a regular basis. This is part of what gives these games the feeling that you're playing in a changing and evolving world.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
A 3D graphical server lobby does NOT an MMO make. GW and DDO are not massively multiplayer because of their complete reliance on INSTANCING. Can we at least agree that Diablo/D2 are not MM? Then what if the Battle.NET server was represented graphically as a city (say Tristram/Rogue Encampment). Would Diablo/2 suddenly be considered an MMO? Persistance IS a pre-requisite. Just because MMORPG doesn't have "Persistent World" anywhere in the acronym doesn't mean that doesn't come with it.

For the most part GW is compared to WOW and EQ, both of those games have instancing, and do not have persistent worlds either.

So given your criteria none of these 3 games are MMOs, which I can accept, but what I don't accept is that it's ok to excuse the limitations of some games, but not of GW.

And I am not saying that all the games have the same limitations, or that there's anything wrong with not liking GW, or saying it's less of an MMO than the others.

What I do disagree with are attempts to not discuss or compare the games because of some arbitrary line in the sand that this game is an mmo and that games isn't, just because someones thinks they have the authority to impose such a ruling on the world at large.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Listen. If you said "MMO" was a spectrum discribing a broad number of games, GW would be at the bottom rung (if that), clutching with all it's might not to fall from the "MMO" ladder. It simply IS NOT "massively multiplayer." As has been said before, just because a game has online capability with X million # of users does not mean it is an MMO. Again, refer to my comparison to Diablo/2 (which you conveniently ignored) and tell me GW has more in common with EQ than it does with Diablo/2. Considering only online dynamics. If Battle.NET let you trade items between players without having to actually step into the game world would it then be considered an MMO? Ya right.

GW is quite literally 3D Diablo with graphical Battle.NET

 

[PseudoKnight]

THis sums it up for me from the GameSpy article:

GameSpy: Was Meridian 59 the first attempt at a massively multiplayer game?
Koster: That depends on how you define massively multiplayer.
GameSpy: Was it the first attempt at a persistent world?
Koster: That depends on how you define persistent.

There's no point in debating semantics and labels.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Tom
I think a much more important aspect of these kinds of games, that differentiates them from other online games, is they are designed from the outset to have content added on a regular basis. This is part of what gives these games the feeling that you're playing in a changing and evolving world.

THE NAME OF THE GENRE IS MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES. You are an idiot. I'm through with this whole conversation.

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
A 3D graphical server lobby does NOT an MMO make. GW and DDO are not massively multiplayer because of their complete reliance on INSTANCING. Can we at least agree that Diablo/D2 are not MM? Then what if the Battle.NET server was represented graphically as a city (say Tristram/Rogue Encampment). Would Diablo/2 suddenly be considered an MMO? Persistance IS a pre-requisite. Just because MMORPG doesn't have "Persistent World" anywhere in the acronym doesn't mean that doesn't come with it.

For the most part GW is compared to WOW and EQ, both of those games have instancing, and do not have persistent worlds either.

So given your criteria none of these 3 games are MMOs, which I can accept, but what I don't accept is that it's ok to excuse the limitations of some games, but not of GW.

And I am not saying that all the games have the same limitations, or that there's anything wrong with not liking GW, or saying it's less of an MMO than the others.

What I do disagree with are attempts to not discuss or compare the games because of some arbitrary line in the sand that this game is an mmo and that games isn't, just because someones thinks they have the authority to impose such a ruling on the world at large.

That is an incorrect statement for WOW and EQ. What is instanced in those games are dungeons. The rest of the game world is persistent in games like WOW, EQ, EVE, etc. This is directly opposite of what Guild Wars is. In Guild Wars, the entire game world is instanced.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Listen. If you said "MMO" was a spectrum discribing a broad number of games, GW would be at the bottom rung (if that), clutching with all it's might not to fall from the "MMO" ladder. It simply IS NOT "massively multiplayer." As has been said before, just because a game has online capability with X million # of users does not mean it is an MMO. Again, refer to my comparison to Diablo/2 (which you conveniently ignored) and tell me GW has more in common with EQ than it does with Diablo/2. Considering only online dynamics. If Battle.NET let you trade items between players without having to actually step into the game world would it then be considered an MMO? Ya right.

GW is quite literally 3D Diablo with graphical Battle.NET

I guess you missed my post about one of the other criteria for games that are usually refered to as MMOs, a factor I consider more important than the size of the commons area, which is the ability and fullfillment to stream new content which is part of the aspect of a "persistent world".

As far as comparing GW to D2, they aren't all that similar. The biggest reason GW is something of an mmo and D2 isn't, is the reason I just gave about streaming new content on a regular basis. As far as gameplay goes, GW has a good deal of what D2 has as far as hack and slash and a world to explore, on a much much larger scale, but GW also has a lot of the elements of a tactical squad game.

When played with henchies, GW plays like a real time squad tactics game, with a fully realized rpg game and an evolving world.

As to the issue of the commons area, it seems to me for a good part of the gameplay in WOW or EQ, the main difference between those games and GW is you have to walk or ride a lot farther to get to the next instanced area. I'm not denying that those games offer the possibility for things to happen along the way, that can't happen in GW, but what percent of the time does that possibility actually enhance the gameplay ?

And everything about the way the world in Eq and WOW isn't positive. In my limited experience with those games, I didn't particularly like the way that whatever I did in the world, would in a matter of time be undone, so someone else could do what I already did. Seeing a monster I killed, magically reappear in a few minutes, doesn't help my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: DPmaster

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
A 3D graphical server lobby does NOT an MMO make. GW and DDO are not massively multiplayer because of their complete reliance on INSTANCING. Can we at least agree that Diablo/D2 are not MM? Then what if the Battle.NET server was represented graphically as a city (say Tristram/Rogue Encampment). Would Diablo/2 suddenly be considered an MMO? Persistance IS a pre-requisite. Just because MMORPG doesn't have "Persistent World" anywhere in the acronym doesn't mean that doesn't come with it.

For the most part GW is compared to WOW and EQ, both of those games have instancing, and do not have persistent worlds either.

So given your criteria none of these 3 games are MMOs, which I can accept, but what I don't accept is that it's ok to excuse the limitations of some games, but not of GW.

And I am not saying that all the games have the same limitations, or that there's anything wrong with not liking GW, or saying it's less of an MMO than the others.

What I do disagree with are attempts to not discuss or compare the games because of some arbitrary line in the sand that this game is an mmo and that games isn't, just because someones thinks they have the authority to impose such a ruling on the world at large.

That is an incorrect statement for WOW and EQ. What is instanced in those games are dungeons. The rest of the game world is persistent in games like WOW, EQ, EVE, etc. This is directly opposite of what Guild Wars is. In Guild Wars, the entire game world is instanced.

My statement is not incorrect, in fact you confirm it yourself with your statement. If a game has instancing, then that part of the game does not have a persistent world. That is all I said. My point was to refute absolutism in criteria through irony, to give an example of where such narrow-minded thinking leads one.

And to add to that, even the part of the world that is considered "persistent" is only partly persistent. The background is persistent, but the key elements of gameplay are constantly regenerated. So it's kind of persistent on a superficial level, but in other ways it's not persistent at all.

Furthermore, a persistent world is only relevant in terms of what it does to enhance the game. If you think about why a persistent world can potentially enhance a game, it turns out there are several reasons, one of which, as I said before, is that a world that is persistant can evolve and present the player with a different experience each time the player enters the world.

This is an element of a persistent world, that GW is designed to facilitate, without all of the other elements of a persistent world.

WOW and EQ have more of the elements of a persistent world than GW, but they still only have some of the elements, some of the time.

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: DPmaster

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
A 3D graphical server lobby does NOT an MMO make. GW and DDO are not massively multiplayer because of their complete reliance on INSTANCING. Can we at least agree that Diablo/D2 are not MM? Then what if the Battle.NET server was represented graphically as a city (say Tristram/Rogue Encampment). Would Diablo/2 suddenly be considered an MMO? Persistance IS a pre-requisite. Just because MMORPG doesn't have "Persistent World" anywhere in the acronym doesn't mean that doesn't come with it.

For the most part GW is compared to WOW and EQ, both of those games have instancing, and do not have persistent worlds either.

So given your criteria none of these 3 games are MMOs, which I can accept, but what I don't accept is that it's ok to excuse the limitations of some games, but not of GW.

And I am not saying that all the games have the same limitations, or that there's anything wrong with not liking GW, or saying it's less of an MMO than the others.

What I do disagree with are attempts to not discuss or compare the games because of some arbitrary line in the sand that this game is an mmo and that games isn't, just because someones thinks they have the authority to impose such a ruling on the world at large.

That is an incorrect statement for WOW and EQ. What is instanced in those games are dungeons. The rest of the game world is persistent in games like WOW, EQ, EVE, etc. This is directly opposite of what Guild Wars is. In Guild Wars, the entire game world is instanced.

My statement is not incorrect, in fact you confirm it yourself with your statement. If a game has instancing, then that part of the game does not have a persistent world. That is all I said. My point was to refute absolutism in criteria through irony, to give an example of where such narrow-minded thinking leads one.

And to add to that, even the part of the world that is considered "persistent" is only partly persistent. The background is persistent, but the key elements of gameplay are constantly regenerated. So it's kind of persistent on a superficial level, but in other ways it's not persistent at all.

Furthermore, a persistent world is only relevant in terms of what it does to enhance the game. If you think about why a persistent world can potentially enhance a game, it turns out there are several reasons, one of which, as I said before, is that a world that is persistant can evolve and present the player with a different experience each time the player enters the world.

This is an element of a persistent world, that GW is designed to facilitate, without all of the other elements of a persistent world.

WOW and EQ have more of the elements of a persistent world than GW, but they still only have some of the elements, some of the time.

No, you said the worlds were not persistent. The dungeons are instanced. But those are not part of the world (I don't consider them anyways). You will never have to go in to dungeons ever in the game if you do not desire to do so. When you log off of games like WoW or EVE, the game world still continues on without you. That's the most basic definition for a persistent world. Doesn't happen though with games like Guild Wars...once you log off, your game world is reset. In Guild Wars, the game world is your own and no one else's...that's why Guild Wars isn't persistent. In WoW or EVE, the game world is EVERYONE'S game world and not just your own (per server anyways).

If you have no desire to go into the instanced parts (more like 98% of the game) of Guild Wars, you're stuck staring at the login screen. Once you log in, you're instanced in GW. You can't even move to or discover new/different areas of GW without being instanced. With games like WoW, EQ, EVE, etc., that's not the case.

 

[AbAbber2k]

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand. "MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER." The words are right there and yet people put more meaning into those two words than they might put into the bible. WoW may be a poor example (UO, DAoC or EvE would probably be the best examples) of an MMO, but GW simply DOES NOT COMPARE. Streaming content? GW isn't even trully streaming because much of the streamed updates require CLIENT RESTARTS. I still stand by my argument that GW = D2 more than it = WoW/any other popular "true" MMO.

 

[PseudoKnight]

If we're going to argue about persistance, I could contend that most MMORPGs are not. There is no real impact on the environment when everything you accomplish gets reset for the next group.

 

[videogames101]

It's a game where everyone can play together, mmorpg, as long as i can play withh all my friends at the same time in a online game in a contiguous world it is a mmorpg, just screw the technicalities. Guild Wars is a MMO, just accept it.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Guild Wars is a MMO, just accept it.

How can you say that when it fits zero criteria for being labeled as such, the devs say it isn't, and even games that allow for MORE players playing at the same time aren't considered mmo's? There is absolutely NOTHING that makes it an MMO.