MMORPG vs. CORPG - Guild Wars Forums

Cerixus · May 05, 2005, 08:40 PM // 20:40

I keep seeing people say "this isn't an MMORPG it's a CORPG"...

Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game or MMORPG is a multiplayer computer role-playing game that enables thousands of players to play in an evolving virtual world at the same time over the Internet. MMORPGs are a specific type of massive(ly) multiplayer online game (MMOG).

Lets see:
"multiplayer computer role-playing game" - Check
"enables thousands of players to play" - Check
"an evolving virtual world" - Check

I guess you could argue the fact that since you can't actually do quests with more than 7 other people that it eludes the above definition, but I disagree. There are still thousands of people playing/trading/chatting/RPing in the towns "at the same time".

Also, on the flip side, what MMORPG's aren't competitive?

I just think it's silly everytime someone is corrected for saying MMORPG...

TalonSlayer · May 05, 2005, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Toon Town.

dok1 · May 05, 2005, 08:48 PM // 20:48

MMORPG is more of a persistent world thing. Where everyone plays in the same world.

adam.skinner · May 05, 2005, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Yes. Let us use wikipedia as our definitive source.

The reason we call an MMORPG Massively Multiplayer is because there are thousands of people in the same game world. A MUD isn't massively multiplayer, even though it has 200 people on at a time.

GW has at most 50 people to a district, 32 in a competitive map, and 8 in a normal adventure zone. That's not massive by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the kinship you're feeling here is the multiplayer RPG portion of the game, which is highly team based and 3D, which is often associated with MMORPGs.

etowiosee · May 05, 2005, 09:39 PM // 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam.skinner

GW has at most 50 people to a district, 32 in a competitive map, and 8 in a normal adventure zone. That's not massive by any stretch of the imagination.

I had information that districts capped at 100 people per district and when the districts reached that # it then created a new one. At one time in Pre Searing Ascalon there were 161 Districts. I've seen up over 100 in some Post Searing cities as well.

To me that's a Massive # of people considering how many cities there are that people can be in as well as that doesn't take into consideration how many are out in their instances doing Quests and missions.

Dreamsmith · May 05, 2005, 09:44 PM // 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cerixus

"enables thousands of players to play" - Check

Morrowind enables thousands of players to play. They just all play in their own instances of the game. Thus, Morrowind is not "massively multiplayer".

Neither is GW, for the same reason. Thousands of players do not play in the same instance of the world, they all play in relatively small instances.

GW is no more an MMORPG than the Diablo II Realms were.

It certainly doesn't match the Wikipedia definition. "...to play in an evolving virtual world at the same time..." Note the use of the singular. Do thousands of players play in the same world at the same time? No. Not even close. The mere fact that some people can be in Ascalon City before the Searing and some after it at the same time breaks the central concept of an MMORPG regarding a shared virtual reality. These people are in entirely different realities.

Manderlock · May 05, 2005, 09:54 PM // 21:54

You have to stop trying to compaire the game to other MMOs and just look at the def of MMO, it fits.

If the devs wanted to "stand out" they should have made it a specialized version of a MMO. Lets say..........MMCO, that would fit, and its still in the MMO genre. As it stands, the game is mislabled. For it to be a true Competive Online game, it must have most of the focus on PvP. This game dosent.

Romac · May 05, 2005, 10:00 PM // 22:00

mmog is what i prefer

only a slim minority of people actually roleplay (according to what we commonly refer to as 'roleplaying') so why stick that word in there?

i don't roleplay...i'm just a guy sitting at a computer playing a fun game, i'm not pretending to be anything i'm not.

zemelett · May 05, 2005, 10:14 PM // 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam.skinner

Yes. Let us use wikipedia as our definitive source.

The reason we call an MMORPG Massively Multiplayer is because there are thousands of people in the same game world. A MUD isn't massively multiplayer, even though it has 200 people on at a time.

GW has at most 50 people to a district, 32 in a competitive map, and 8 in a normal adventure zone. That's not massive by any stretch of the imagination.

I think the kinship you're feeling here is the multiplayer RPG portion of the game, which is highly team based and 3D, which is often associated with MMORPGs.

The point here is that you can at any point in time communicate with any other person who is playing GW at the same time you are. It doesn't matter if they are pre-searing, or on a quest or whatever...anyone who is online while you are can be talked to, no servers, to worry about

Pandora's box · May 05, 2005, 11:51 PM // 23:51

I'm using Wikipedia now and than to answer questions for the [email protected] service in the Netherlands. Always keep in mind that its an open resource encyclopedia. Its not complete and some information is subject to discussion.

What I'm missing in this definition is: in a MMORPG ALL players play on the same world AT ONCE. Meaning they all can meet, battle, pk, making parties, whatever. A good example of a MMORPG is Anarchy online. WOW is discussable since its gameplay is restricted to local servers. Guild Wars is certainly NOT a MMORPG because players dont share the same gaming environment. When leaving town they are separated in parties.

Velric Shadran · May 06, 2005, 12:01 AM // 00:01

I originally wanted to declasify GW as an MMO and say that it wasn't one at all, but... it is. There is no *logical* arguement one can make to say that it is not an MMO. You can link up with *anyone* at any time. You are all using the *exact* same build of the game and are playing the same world.

Some of you argued that it is all seperate instance. Most modern MMO's use instances now. City of Heroes does it in the same fashion as Guild Wars. Does that mean CoH isn't an MMO? No.

One of you tried to compare it to Morrowind. Please, you shouldn't even be playing video games trying to make a comparison like that.

Caster of Neverwinter · May 06, 2005, 12:43 AM // 00:43

My question for this forum and thread: why care so much about the classification?

My reply for this thread: I like the term ORPG. Online Roleplaying Game. Or the term OAG. Online Adventure Game.
Are any of you geniuses going to correct me? ^.^

Navaros · May 06, 2005, 01:09 AM // 01:09

three points in regards to the original post:

1. Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Don't believe me? Just look up their biased definition of "Starforce".

2. Guild Wars does not have an evolving world.

3. Guild Wars is not an MMORPG

Velric Shadran · May 06, 2005, 01:25 AM // 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navaros

three points in regards to the original post:

1. Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Don't believe me? Just look up their biased definition of "Starforce".

2. Guild Wars does not have an evolving world.

3. Guild Wars is not an MMORPG

At least yer 1 for 3, better average than most.

Caster of Neverwinter · May 06, 2005, 01:50 AM // 01:50

We can draw the conclusion that Guild Wars can not be classified as in a single category. So your all wrong if you keep trying to argue its either a CORPG or an MMORPG when it meets conditions of both and when you have no idea how to dig up a 100% correct definition when there are none. Maybe a commonly accepted definition of an MMORPG. But that differs from everyone in this thread.

So its a new brand. Woot.

Cerixus · May 06, 2005, 12:13 PM // 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caster of Neverwinter

My question for this forum and thread: why care so much about the classification?

That's my point exactly. When I posted this, I had just read 3 or 4 posts where people simply mentioned the term MMORPG and others jumped down their throats all "You n00b this isn't an MMORPG!!!". I don't really care what it's classified as; it's awesome.

As for Wikipedia not being a valid resource, that's great... but how come you all continued to use that definition to argue the point and nobody posted another definition?

adam.skinner · May 06, 2005, 12:22 PM // 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velric Shadran

There is no *logical* arguement one can make to say that it is not an MMO. You can link up with *anyone* at any time. You are all using the *exact* same build of the game and are playing the same world.

So Diablo II is an MMORPG as well, eh?

Manderlock · May 06, 2005, 01:02 PM // 13:02

Again, the game is not labled correctly. MMO fits, Co dosent. I agree, there is no real argument here. Some people would just arguee with a fence post. The dev MADE UP this title, that doesnt change what the game is.

As I said in my post above, stop trying to compaire it to other games. This game is a MMO no matter what the dev title it to hieghten the intrest in the game. Honestly, if they had just called it what it is (a MMO) there would be no argument.

Bone_White_Haze · May 06, 2005, 01:45 PM // 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manderlock

As I said in my post above, stop trying to compaire it to other games. This game is a MMO no matter what the dev title it to hieghten the intrest in the game. Honestly, if they had just called it what it is (a MMO) there would be no argument.

I think they have a good reason to avoid calling it an MMO, actually. They intend to avoid some of the pitfalls of "standard" MMO design (lewt, grind, gank) and take the game in a different design direction entirely.

And as far as I can see, once the main body of the new arrivals hit 20 and have a look around, they've largely been very sucessful at creating something entirely new--it just doesn't LOOK that way until after you've ascended and seen what a game without levels and lewt and grinding and pk-ing and ebaying looks and feels like.

mqstout · May 06, 2005, 01:53 PM // 13:53

The GW team has demonstrated that GW easily has the capability of becoming a "MMO" at any time at the end of the beta, when they spawned monsters in the cities.

May 05, 2005, 09:54 PM // 21:54	#7
Manderlock Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: TX Guild: Crimson ScS Profession: W/N	You have to stop trying to compaire the game to other MMOs and just look at the def of MMO, it fits. If the devs wanted to "stand out" they should have made it a specialized version of a MMO. Lets say..........MMCO, that would fit, and its still in the MMO genre. As it stands, the game is mislabled. For it to be a true Competive Online game, it must have most of the focus on PvP. This game dosent. Last edited by Manderlock; May 05, 2005 at 10:28 PM // 22:28..

May 05, 2005, 08:41 PM // 20:41	#2
TalonSlayer Ascalonian Squire Join Date: Apr 2005	Toon Town.

May 05, 2005, 08:48 PM // 20:48	#3
dok1 Ascalonian Squire Join Date: May 2005	MMORPG is more of a persistent world thing. Where everyone plays in the same world.

May 05, 2005, 08:54 PM // 20:54	#4
adam.skinner Frost Gate Guardian Join Date: Apr 2005 Guild: Elect of God [EoG] Profession: Mo/Me	Yes. Let us use wikipedia as our definitive source. The reason we call an MMORPG Massively Multiplayer is because there are thousands of people in the same game world. A MUD isn't massively multiplayer, even though it has 200 people on at a time. GW has at most 50 people to a district, 32 in a competitive map, and 8 in a normal adventure zone. That's not massive by any stretch of the imagination. I think the kinship you're feeling here is the multiplayer RPG portion of the game, which is highly team based and 3D, which is often associated with MMORPGs.

May 05, 2005, 10:00 PM // 22:00	#8
Romac Lion's Arch Merchant Join Date: Apr 2005	mmog is what i prefer only a slim minority of people actually roleplay (according to what we commonly refer to as 'roleplaying') so why stick that word in there? i don't roleplay...i'm just a guy sitting at a computer playing a fun game, i'm not pretending to be anything i'm not.

May 05, 2005, 11:51 PM // 23:51	#10
Pandora's box Jungle Guide Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Netherlands Profession: Mo/W	I'm using Wikipedia now and than to answer questions for the [email protected] service in the Netherlands. Always keep in mind that its an open resource encyclopedia. Its not complete and some information is subject to discussion. What I'm missing in this definition is: in a MMORPG ALL players play on the same world AT ONCE. Meaning they all can meet, battle, pk, making parties, whatever. A good example of a MMORPG is Anarchy online. WOW is discussable since its gameplay is restricted to local servers. Guild Wars is certainly NOT a MMORPG because players dont share the same gaming environment. When leaving town they are separated in parties.

May 06, 2005, 12:01 AM // 00:01	#11
Velric Shadran Ascalonian Squire Join Date: May 2005	I originally wanted to declasify GW as an MMO and say that it wasn't one at all, but... it is. There is no logical arguement one can make to say that it is not an MMO. You can link up with anyone at any time. You are all using the exact same build of the game and are playing the same world. Some of you argued that it is all seperate instance. Most modern MMO's use instances now. City of Heroes does it in the same fashion as Guild Wars. Does that mean CoH isn't an MMO? No. One of you tried to compare it to Morrowind. Please, you shouldn't even be playing video games trying to make a comparison like that.

May 06, 2005, 12:43 AM // 00:43	#12
Caster of Neverwinter Ascalonian Squire Join Date: May 2005	My question for this forum and thread: why care so much about the classification? My reply for this thread: I like the term ORPG. Online Roleplaying Game. Or the term OAG. Online Adventure Game. Are any of you geniuses going to correct me? ^.^

May 06, 2005, 01:09 AM // 01:09	#13
Navaros Forge Runner Join Date: Apr 2005 Profession: Mo/Me	three points in regards to the original post: 1. Wikipedia is not a credible source of information. Don't believe me? Just look up their biased definition of "Starforce". 2. Guild Wars does not have an evolving world. 3. Guild Wars is not an MMORPG

May 06, 2005, 01:50 AM // 01:50	#15
Caster of Neverwinter Ascalonian Squire Join Date: May 2005	We can draw the conclusion that Guild Wars can not be classified as in a single category. So your all wrong if you keep trying to argue its either a CORPG or an MMORPG when it meets conditions of both and when you have no idea how to dig up a 100% correct definition when there are none. Maybe a commonly accepted definition of an MMORPG. But that differs from everyone in this thread. So its a new brand. Woot.

May 06, 2005, 01:02 PM // 13:02	#18
Manderlock Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: TX Guild: Crimson ScS Profession: W/N	Again, the game is not labled correctly. MMO fits, Co dosent. I agree, there is no real argument here. Some people would just arguee with a fence post. The dev MADE UP this title, that doesnt change what the game is. As I said in my post above, stop trying to compaire it to other games. This game is a MMO no matter what the dev title it to hieghten the intrest in the game. Honestly, if they had just called it what it is (a MMO) there would be no argument.

May 06, 2005, 01:53 PM // 13:53	#20
mqstout Wilds Pathfinder Join Date: May 2005 Location: Pittsburgh	The GW team has demonstrated that GW easily has the capability of becoming a "MMO" at any time at the end of the beta, when they spawned monsters in the cities.