Curse

Alicendre · Jun 19, 2009, 02:42 PM // 14:42

If MMORPGs don't have to be persistant then Diablo 2 is a MMORPG. A whole mode (ladder) which is necessary for a certain quest and some items is only unlocked online, you pretty much have to trade to get some items legitimately, channels are like towns, it's a lot more grindier than GW...

Basically, if a game doesn't have to be persistant to be a MMORPG, then any RPG that can be played online is an MMORPG.

Mordakai · Jun 19, 2009, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Uhm. Yes, yes it does. Henchmen, exactly. Act 1 has an Archer, Act 2 a Spearman, Act 3 a mage with a sword, Act 5 has a Barbarian.

That sounds pretty lame when compared too a variety of henchmen available from most cities right from the get go in GW.

On paper, maybe Diablo and Guild Wars look very similar. But surely even you can admit they play differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

BZZT WRONG

GW never had or will have 6 millions of players. It sold 6 millions of COPIES, when a copy = any chapter of GW and expansion. If I have two accounts, one with every chapter and EotN, and another account with Factions and Prophecies, then I count as 6 "people".

I said over 6 million people care about GW2. For any multiple accounts, turned-off players, etc, there are more people who never bothered even buying Guild Wars because of all the reasons brought up on this thread!

Or are you arguing ONLY the people who bought Guild Wars are even considering Guild Wars 2?

Mordakai · Jun 19, 2009, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alicendre

If MMORPGs don't have to be persistant then Diablo 2 is a MMORPG. A whole mode (ladder) which is necessary for a certain quest and some items is only unlocked online, you pretty much have to trade to get some items legitimately, channels are like towns, it's a lot more grindier than GW...

Basically, if a game doesn't have to be persistant to be a MMORPG, then any RPG that can be played online is an MMORPG.

You could certainly make that point.

After all, it's not PMMORPG. It's MMORPG.

Anyway, this is just semantics. As long as the media calls GW a MMORPG, I think it will generally be viewed as a MMORPG, whether it meets everybody's (different!) definition of what a MMORPG is or not.

Coraline Jones · Jun 19, 2009, 04:11 PM // 16:11

If you look at the NCSoft business reports, they classify Guild Wars 2, and by extension, GW1, as a MMO. You can believe what you want, but in the end Guild Wars is classified in the same category as WoW, LOTRO, EQ, or whatever online RPG that you want to use as an example.

"CORPG" is just a pure marketing term. Aion is claiming that it has "PvPvE". That doesn't mean that it's not the same feature as other games that feature seamless PvP and PvE content.

EagleDelta1 · Jun 21, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alicendre

If MMORPGs don't have to be persistant then Diablo 2 is a MMORPG. A whole mode (ladder) which is necessary for a certain quest and some items is only unlocked online, you pretty much have to trade to get some items legitimately, channels are like towns, it's a lot more grindier than GW...

Basically, if a game doesn't have to be persistant to be a MMORPG, then any RPG that can be played online is an MMORPG.

Not necessarily. Diablo 2(and most other SP RPGs w/ MP modes) have their Multiplayer run on the same player server system seen in most FPS and RTS games(where the PLAYER creates a server on his machine and other players join) whereas GW is run on a set of servers, ran and maintained by ANet, where ALL the players go to interact, join, and play together, just like WoW, EVE, FFXI, LOTRO, etc. In other words, just like other MMOs. Just because the game play is different doesn't change that it is a MMO.

hlc617 · Jun 21, 2009, 04:04 AM // 04:04

The pvp in WoW is optional, and you can get to 80 without ever grouping with anyone else... but I guess you're not able to kill steal and mess up other people's quests in GW, so it *can't* be an MMO

.

Naw I get what both sides are saying. Idk I call it an MMO because people don't know wtf a CORPG is :|.

Cacheelma · Jun 21, 2009, 04:17 AM // 04:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by hlc617

Idk I call it an MMO because people don't know wtf a CORPG is :|.

By "people" you mean just you, perhaps?

Abedeus · Jun 21, 2009, 06:27 AM // 06:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

I said over 6 million people care about GW2. For any multiple accounts, turned-off players, etc, there are more people who never bothered even buying Guild Wars because of all the reasons brought up on this thread!

And you got that number from... where? Not even 1/3 of the people you mentioned bought a copy, let alone has an account.

You have nothing to back this up.

Quote:

Or are you arguing ONLY the people who bought Guild Wars are even considering Guild Wars 2?

Yes, because if people didn't play the first game, what makes you think they will play the sequel?

Especially if there are dozens of MMOs that not only have actualy gameplay SCREENSHOTS, they already are in Beta and are pretty advanced. Aion, Champions Online, The Old Republic, just to name free. There is also that new Blizzard MMO that they've just announced.

[quote=Coraline Jones Aion is claiming that it has "PvPvE". That doesn't mean that it's not the same feature as other games that feature seamless PvP and PvE content.[/quote]
Uhm. PvPvE refers to fighting both the enemy factions, AI and player one, at the same time in Abbys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleDelta1

Not necessarily. Diablo 2(and most other SP RPGs w/ MP modes) have their Multiplayer run on the same player server system seen in most FPS and RTS games(where the PLAYER creates a server on his machine and other players join)

Wrong. Battle.net is hosted by Blizzard. Players never create their own servers on Closed BN, only on Open, from what I know. But nobody legal plays there, anyway.

lutz · Jun 21, 2009, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

AWrong. Battle.net is hosted by Blizzard. Players never create their own servers on Closed BN, only on Open, from what I know. But nobody legal plays there, anyway.

The games made on closed BNet (for StarCraft, and possibly WarCraft) are actually hosted on the host's computer. Battle.net, for StarCraft, is simply an interface for you to connect to someone else's computer.

beaverlegions · Jun 21, 2009, 08:54 AM // 08:54

i think its safe to say that when the company that makes the game says tis not a mmo, we can all agree that its not a mmo.

Avarre · Jun 21, 2009, 09:45 AM // 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

The games made on closed BNet (for StarCraft, and possibly WarCraft) are actually hosted on the host's computer. Battle.net, for StarCraft, is simply an interface for you to connect to someone else's computer.

True.

Not sure how it works for D2 though - uber dia spawns are dependent on game IP within the server. I'd assume Bnet works the same way for all the games, though.

EagleDelta1 · Jun 21, 2009, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Uhm. PvPvE refers to fighting both the enemy factions, AI and player one, at the same time in Abbys.

Umm, you can do that in EVE. AND you DON'T have to go to another "world" to end up in that situation. Aion, still, isn't the first game to do that.

Quote:

Wrong. Battle.net is hosted by Blizzard. Players never create their own servers on Closed BN, only on Open, from what I know. But nobody legal plays there, anyway.

Really? Cause I HAVE the game, been playing it online a lot & have yet to see a blizzard run part of online, outside of logging into battle.net to retrieve my character data. Regardless of whether those are run by blizzard or not, they still are limited on player amounts in each server. The servers, whether they are run by blizzard or players, are still run like a FPS or RTS multiplayer server. which is still very different from a MMO, like Guild Wars, WoW, EVE, etc.

EDIT: didn't see that lutz had already beaten me to the punch.

Finally, I'll say it again. Just because ANet coined the term "CORPG", doesn't mean that it is a new genre. The RPG genre "Diablo-style" games are put in - hack'n'slash RPGs, didn't become a genre until AFTER diablo 1&2, and several "copycats" were released(and it was argued for a long time whether or not diablo was an RPG) that the hack n slash genre was adopted. The INDUSTRY decides the game genres, NOT a single company. As far as the world is concerned GW is a MMO.

Made In Ascalon · Jun 22, 2009, 02:03 AM // 02:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coraline Jones

If you look at the NCSoft business reports, they classify Guild Wars 2, and by extension, GW1, as a MMO.

That's some strange logic you're using there. Is Final Fantasy 10 classified as an MMO by extension because Final Fantasy 11 is?

shoyon456 · Jun 22, 2009, 03:04 AM // 03:04

Um, no sorry. Anet has said it themselves, GW2 is a WHOLE NEW GAME. My main complaint about GW2 from the little info we have is that it is reversing nearly all of the gaming elements that made GW unique and not a classic "MMO."

Phaern Majes · Jun 22, 2009, 03:41 AM // 03:41

Just because I call a pig a peacock doesn't make it so....

Mordakai · Jun 22, 2009, 03:06 PM // 15:06

If Guild Wars is not a MMORPG, then why is it here

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm

http://www.tentonhammer.com/

http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/to...orpg-games.asp (nevermind I've never heard of their top game, Entropia Universe?)

1up at first called it a new genre....
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3141192&p=1

but now calls it a MMORPG:

http://www.1up.com/do/gameOverview?cId=3158267

PC Gamer lists Guild Wars in their MMORPG section

Massively is letting viewers decide where he will go next in Guild Wars:

http://www.massively.com/2009/06/17/...quering-kryta/

Not to mention.... MMO Guru Network!

(I'm sure there are others I missed. Please feel free to add other sites that list Guild Wars as a MMORPG).

MithranArkanere · Jun 22, 2009, 03:21 PM // 15:21

Massive doesn't mean 'with 24 players in the same place' it means with LOTS of players in the same place.

The only bits of MMO in GW are in outposts, and those palces are more like a mix between cities and the 'party forming chart rooms' that games like Diablo have.

Being able to play with other players doesn't make a game a MMO. The numbers must be big enough. 24 is not big enough. I don't know were the limit should be put, but I'm sure it's over 50.

As with games like Diablo, Dungeon Siege or Neverwinters Nights, you form a party before entering the actual game, and there are limits of how many people can be playing at the same time in each game. Remember the lines: "<player name> has joined the game>" Yes, the 'game' gappens in missions, dungeons, explorable areas, arenas and other playable zones, where skills can be activated.
But unlike them, you can interact with the world in the same place you form parties.

So GW is like nothing else. It's unique in that way. And so, it needed a different name.
The name chosen was CORPG.

GW2 will be a real zoned MMORPG, like Granado Espada or Ragnarok.

Mordakai · Jun 22, 2009, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

And you got that number from... where? Not even 1/3 of the people you mentioned bought a copy, let alone has an account.

You have nothing to back this up.

No offense, but neither do you.

If you think only 3 million people have bought Guild Wars, I think you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Yes, because if people didn't play the first game, what makes you think they will play the sequel?

Geez, I don't know, because maybe MMORGs weren't as big 4 years ago? Because people bought WoW instead? Because people didn't know who the hell NCSoft, ArenaNet and Guild Wars was?

Like it or hate it, Guild Wars has gotten press over the last 4 years. People will know about GW2, and it will sell better than Guild Wars (even if it dies if it sucks, the intial sales will be greater.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Especially if there are dozens of MMOs that not only have actualy gameplay SCREENSHOTS, they already are in Beta and are pretty advanced. Aion, Champions Online, The Old Republic, just to name free. There is also that new Blizzard MMO that they've just announced.

Those are all pay to play. And they could all suck. AoC had great screenshots, too.

Abedeus · Jun 22, 2009, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordakai

No offense, but neither do you.

If you think only 3 million people have bought Guild Wars, I think you are wrong.

Dude, 1/3 of 6 millions isn't 3 million.

Yes, I think only 2 millions bought or less. Considering how many people have two accounts that often have 3 or 4 games, number gets even lower. And there are some maniacs with more than 3 or even 7 accounts. Because people with 1 campaign only usually don't play for too long, anyway.

Quote:

Geez, I don't know, because maybe MMORGs weren't as big 4 years ago? Because people bought WoW instead? Because people didn't know who the hell NCSoft, ArenaNet and Guild Wars was?

Poor marketing.

Quote:

Like it or hate it, Guild Wars has gotten press over the last 4 years. People will know about GW2, and it will sell better than Guild Wars (even if it dies if it sucks, the intial sales will be greater.)

Really? This explains probably why there are only 30 reviews of Nightfall at Metacritics, and only 20 reviews of EotN. If anything, people started to forget about Guild Wars thanks to no news or new campaigns. CAMPAIGNS, not full-priced packs with reskinned weapons and armors.

Quote:

Those are all pay to play. And they could all suck. AoC had great screenshots, too.

Aion is already in EU/US open beta and in Asia it has 4 millions of subscribers. That's only 1 million less than WoW in Asia.

Champions, from what people in beta say (of course, through friends - they still are under NDA) is pretty good. It's basically City of Heroes, but improved.

TOR is being made by Bioware, they don't have a single bad game.

edit: submitted too fast.

Mordakai · Jun 22, 2009, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Dude, 1/3 of 6 millions isn't 3 million.

Yes, I think only 2 millions bought or less. Considering how many people have two accounts that often have 3 or 4 games, number gets even lower. And there are some maniacs with more than 3 or even 7 accounts. Because people with 1 campaign only usually don't play for too long, anyway.

LOL, I thought you were delusional with 2 million, so I rounded to 1/2.

I can't beleive that many people have multiple accounts, that's crazy talk!

But, since there is no way to prove it either way, I guess we'll just have to wait until GW2 comes out.

BTW, what makes you so sure that out of the 2 million who have bought GW, none will buy multiple copies of GW2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Poor marketing.

Agreed. And I don't think GW2 will repeat the same mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Really? This explains probably why there are only 30 reviews of Nightfall at Metacritics, and only 20 reviews of EotN. If anything, people started to forget about Guild Wars thanks to no news or new campaigns. CAMPAIGNS, not full-priced packs with reskinned weapons and armors.

Right, I agree, which is why when GW2 launches it will get LOTS of press.

That's what people are waiting for, not EoTN.

Quote:

Aion is already in EU/US open beta and in Asia it has 4 millions of subscribers. That's only 1 million less than WoW in Asia.

Good news for NCSoft.

Look, again, these are all pay to play, and so do not directly compete with Guild Wars 2.

The great thing about Guild Wars is you can buy it and play another game, too, since you don't feel forced to play by spending about $15 a month.

EDIT: I do think it's funny you think all these MMORPGS will succeed, whereas Guild Wars 2 will fail.