Curse

Bryant Again · Aug 11, 2008, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

if you could play any of biowares RPGs online with everyone else, they would be MMORPGs.. simple as that.

Not really, because that definition means that Diablo 2, Team Fortress, and Counter-Strike are all MMOs. It's no longer as simple as that.

If you label a game a racer, you'll expect racing. If you label a game an adventure, you'll expect exploring and puzzle-solving. If you label a game a first-person-shooter, you'll expect first-person action. The same now applies to the name "MMO": it's no longer a feature, it's now a genre. You can "thank" WoW for that. It's why you see so many other MMO's failing and why you *don't* see ANet labeling their own game as such

Magikarp · Aug 11, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Not really, because that definition means that Diablo 2, Team Fortress, and Counter-Strike are all MMOs. It's no longer as simple as that.

If you label a game a racer, you'll expect racing. If you label a game an adventure, you'll expect exploring and puzzle-solving. If you label a game a first-person-shooter, you'll expect first-person action. The same now applies to the name "MMO": it's no longer a feature, it's now a genre. You can "thank" WoW for that. It's why you see so many other MMO's failing and why you *don't* see ANet labeling their own game as such

totally incorrect. TF2 and Counter Strike involve no Role Playing at all. MMO is short for MMORPG btw. also, mentioning "racing" is again, wildly off topic, seeing no one is that stupid, nor even insinuating that into the conversation. I didnt like Diablo, so i have no idea what kind of game it was, other than the fact that i know you could play online, its point and click, and was made by blizzard (i was a starcraft kid, not diablo).

edit: if Diablo is like Starcraft (featuring its online content through Battlenet) we're again, talking about totally different scenarios, that push your statement off base again. Battle.net wouldnt allow you to actually "rpg" so that they would avoid cheating. Maybe you could level in D2 online, or even kill bosses for rewards etc, but thats a different type of gameplay altogether imo. Without the freely moving fluid role playing while being able to play online at any time is what MMORPG suggest (and states).

System architecture

Most MMORPGs are deployed using a client-server system architecture. The software that generates and persists the "world" runs continuously on a server, and players connect to it via client software. The client software may provide access to the entire playing world, or further 'expansions' may be required to be purchased to allow access to certain areas of the game. Everquest and World of Warcraft are two examples of games that use such a format. Players generally must purchase the client software for a one-time fee, although an increasing trend is for MMORPGs to work using pre-existing "thin" clients, such as a web browser.

Some MMORPGs require payment of a monthly subscription to play. By nature, "massively multiplayer" games are always online, and most require some sort of continuous revenue (such as monthly subscriptions and advertisements) for maintenance and development.-according to wikipedia.

Bryant Again · Aug 11, 2008, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

totally incorrect. TF2 and Counter Strike involve no Role Playing at all...

I wasn't talking about roleplaying. I was merely going off of what you gave as to what makes a game an "MMO". Since you can only play Team Fortress 2 online and with other players, it must be safe to label it an MMO, right?

So why don't we? Because that's not what people expect as you prove with this small sentance:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

MMO is short for MMORPG btw.

Not what it used to mean. Before it used to be about just playing with a lot of people at the same time in the same game area. But then it started to mean it was an RPG. Then it started to mean persistancy. Then it started to include raiding. Then it started to include world PvP. And then and then and then.

These days, a lot is expected when you label something an "MMO". Just like a game labeled as a "racer" is expected to have racing, just like a game labeled as an "FPS" is expected to have guns and a crosshair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

also, mentioning "racing" is again, wildly off topic, seeing no one is that stupid, nor even insinuating that into the conversation.

If you take it out of context then yes, it's very off-topic. In context, no. We're discussing the expectations that come with labeling a genre, and I brought up racing games as an example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

I didnt like Diablo, so i have no idea what kind of game it was, other than the fact that i know you could play online, its point and click, and was made by blizzard (i was a starcraft kid, not diablo).

It's an RPG and can be played online. Based on that definition - and since that's all GW is - it equals MMO.

Magikarp · Aug 11, 2008, 03:03 AM // 03:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

I wasn't talking about roleplaying. I was merely going off of what you gave as to what makes a game an "MMO". Since you can only play Team Fortress 2 online and with other players, it must be safe to label it an MMO, right?

So why don't we? Because that's not what people expect as you prove with this small sentance:

Not what it used to mean. Before it used to be about just playing with a lot of people at the same time in the same game area. But then it started to mean it was an RPG. Then it started to mean persistancy. Then it started to include raiding. Then it started to include world PvP. And then and then and then.

These days, a lot is expected when you label something an "MMO". Just like a game labeled as a "racer" is expected to have racing, just like a game labeled as an "FPS" is expected to have guns and a crosshair.

If you take it out of context then yes, it's very off-topic. In context, no. We're discussing the expectations that come with labeling a genre, and I brought up racing games as an example.

It's an RPG and can be played online. Based on that definition - and since that's all GW is - it equals MMO.

until official wording of such comes about, the term "MMO" itself under your definition is totally disputable. MMO is simply the terminology for exactly that. the abbreviated version of said acronym is not under some form of suggestion, and thus can't be treated as so, or else you compromise everything the initial acronym stood for. FPS involves the very terms that its content is comprised of, as does the term "racer".

your understanding of the term MMO does not make this some sort of statistical fact, just because you and a couple folks feel as though thats what makes "MMORPGs" entirety.

this is simply becoming a talk about the essense of a subject and the opinions of others. the stark, unaltered acronym MMORPG applies to gws, simple as that. (as does the abbreviated acronym MMO).

Bryant Again · Aug 11, 2008, 03:35 AM // 03:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

until official wording of such comes about, the term "MMO" itself under your definition is totally disputable. MMO is simply the terminology for exactly that. the abbreviated version of said acronym is not under some form of suggestion, and thus can't be treated as so, or else you compromise everything the initial acronym stood for. FPS involves the very terms that its content is comprised of, as does the term "racer".

your understanding of the term MMO does not make this some sort of statistical fact, just because you and a couple folks feel as though thats what makes "MMORPGs" entirety.

this is simply becoming a talk about the essense of a subject and the opinions of others. the stark, unaltered acronym MMORPG applies to gws, simple as that. (as does the abbreviated acronym MMO).

Then consider this: The only difference standing between Guild Wars and Neverwinter Nights and other off-line is that Guild Wars is online only. So why do so many demand so much out of ANet? Why do you see so many players saying saying how Guild Wars is "bad" because ANet doesn't release new and frequent content for it, and how come "non-MMO" games aren't shunned for the exact same reasons? What is it exactly that makes Guild Wars so different?

The answer is simple: By calling it an MMO. Because when you label it an MMO, you're immediately comparing it to WoW. Like it or not, this is how it is today. And since GW compares "poorly" to WoW, it is easily overlooked and to be considered a "bad game". Because ANet doesn't update their game frequently and provide fresh content, they're scorned as a "bad company".

Yet developers like Bioware, Blizzard, Bethesda - tons of other game companies are able to release a good game, leave it as is, and be praised.

That's why I don't call Guild Wars an MMO. It's why ANet themselves don't call GW an MMO. Because of WoW and the state of MMO's in general, a lot is expected. It's no longer a point of classification, it's a genre. That's why that acronym isn't applied so broadly anymore, since so many other games fit into it - but they aren't labeled it.

A final question: If Guild Wars could be played offline, would you consider it an MMO then?

Magikarp · Aug 11, 2008, 03:52 AM // 03:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Then consider this: The only difference standing between Guild Wars and Neverwinter Nights and other off-line is that Guild Wars is online only. So why do so many demand so much out of ANet? Why do you see so many players saying saying how Guild Wars is "bad" because ANet doesn't release new and frequent content for it, and how come "non-MMO" games aren't shunned for the exact same reasons? What is it exactly that makes Guild Wars so different?

The answer is simple: By calling it an MMO. Because when you label it an MMO, you're immediately comparing it to WoW. Like it or not, this is how it is today. And since GW compares "poorly" to WoW, it is easily overlooked and to be considered a "bad game". Because ANet doesn't update their game frequently and provide fresh content, they're scorned as a "bad company".

Yet developers like Bioware, Blizzard, Bethesda - tons of other game companies are able to release a good game, leave it as is, and be praised.

That's why I don't call Guild Wars an MMO. It's why ANet themselves don't call GW an MMO. Because of WoW and the state of MMO's in general, a lot is expected. It's no longer a point of classification, it's a genre. That's why that acronym isn't applied so broadly anymore, since so many other games fit into it - but they aren't labeled it.

A final question: If Guild Wars could be played offline, would you consider it an MMO then?

Then consider this: The only difference standing between Guild Wars and Neverwinter Nights and other off-line is that Guild Wars is online only. So why do so many demand so much out of ANet? Why do you see so many players saying saying how Guild Wars is "bad" because ANet doesn't release new and frequent content for it, and how come "non-MMO" games aren't shunned for the exact same reasons? What is it exactly that makes Guild Wars so different?

because a good game sets its standards high, thus the community treats it as such, and expects a higher level of excellence.

The answer is simple: By calling it an MMO. Because when you label it an MMO, you're immediately comparing it to WoW. Like it or not, this is how it is today. And since GW compares "poorly" to WoW, it is easily overlooked and to be considered a "bad game". Because ANet doesn't update their game frequently and provide fresh content, they're scorned as a "bad company".

i've heard maybe 10 people total use the "not an MMO" argument ever in my 3 years, and the comparison to WoW will be endless. it wasnt the first, it wont be the last, and definitely didnt set any standards or means for all MMOs to fall under. it just sold a lot of copies, end of story.

Yet developers like Bioware, Blizzard, Bethesda - tons of other game companies are able to release a good game, leave it as is, and be praised.

first off, this is apples and oranges. they have preset content that HAS to be subversive and massive in order to make replay value of any kinda. also, they DO create new content all of the time. (i played NWNs and was/am a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls). secondly, they have to be set strong as stand alones, so that way they have something to span the gap between titles (which is why patches and new content are also added sporadically).

That's why I don't call Guild Wars an MMO. It's why ANet themselves don't call GW an MMO. Because of WoW and the state of MMO's in general, a lot is expected. It's no longer a point of classification, it's a genre. That's why that acronym isn't applied so broadly anymore, since so many other games fit into it - but they aren't labeled it.

from Guild Wars summary on wiki- "Guild Wars is an episodic series of multiplayer online role-playing games developed by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. Three stand-alone episodes and one expansion pack were released in the series from April 2005 to August 2007."

and

"The games in the Guild Wars series were critically well received[4][5][6][7] and won many editor's choice awards, as well as awards such as best value, best massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), and best game.[8] Guild Wars was noted for being one of the few commercially developed games in the MMORPG genre to offer online play without subscription fees,[9] its instanced approach to MMORPG play,[10] and the quality of the graphics and play for computers with low specifications.[11] In February 2008, NCSoft announced that 5 million units of games in the Guild Wars series had been sold."

as for Anet claiming their product is or isnt an "MMO", the only dismissive comment that could have ever been possibly disputable, was someone i think around the time Proph came out, called GWs a "Competitive Online Role Playing Game". highly debatable whether or not this is a dismissal of the fact that GWs is actually not a MMO, or that the person was simply trying to make GWs look "different" for appeal.

please name other games that fit under "MMORPG"s definition, that are directly not classified as such.

A final question: If Guild Wars could be played offline, would you consider it an MMO then?

No. NWN and Battle.net games have no RPG element in their online play seeing as you cannot truly complete character objectives or story elemental changes.

Avarre · Aug 11, 2008, 04:15 AM // 04:15

If Guild Wars did not have pretensions of 'competitive PvP', then balance wouldn't matter quite as much. As soon as that comes up, then there has to be balance to maintain that state of affairs.

Once you start offering prizes/rankings in PvP, then you have to make sure the playing field is somewhat fair, or else it just gets silly. Guild Wars balance is much like a man on a ball, constantly wavering off to the sides and never managing to get it perfectly centered. It doesn't help, of course, that they provide hurricane-force winds to the analogy with every new chapter.

Edit for below: A version to subscribe to with full PvP unlocks and support was suggested I believe.

Zahr Dalsk · Aug 11, 2008, 04:19 AM // 04:19

I'd pay a monthly fee if they'd clean the game up. Y'know, take off the hero cap, add new areas, rework spawning power, stuff like that.

Here's an idea: subscribed customers get to have a full hero party!

I'd totally subscribe to that

Bryant Again · Aug 11, 2008, 04:23 AM // 04:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

because a good game sets its standards high, thus the community treats it as such, and expects a higher level of excellence.

Guild Wars is good, in fact it's great, but that's not what we're seeing it and many other MMO's being compared against. We're seeing it compared against it's features, and it's lack of. Bear in mind what I said about expectations, and people are calling it a bad game because it doesn't meet these expecations. Not the expectations of a "good game", but the having mounts, persistancy, high level caps, and other generic MMO perks.

Guild Wars doesn't have these things so it's considered by many to be "bad", but neither did Baldur's Gate yet it was classified as great.

I'm not calling it "bad" because Guild Wars doesn't have these MMO features, I'm claiming it unfair to compare it as such because it isn't an MMO. You don't see Diablo 2 being compared with WoW, so why Guild Wars? What makes Guild Wars so special besides only being online - or is that enough for people to believe that it's an MMO?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

i've heard maybe 10 people total use the "not an MMO" argument ever in my 3 years, and the comparison to WoW will be endless. it wasnt the first, it wont be the last, and definitely didnt set any standards or means for all MMOs to fall under. it just sold a lot of copies, end of story.

If that was true, we wouldn't see so many people comparing MMO's to WoW. Like it or not, it HAS set those standards. It may not have originated them, but it sure has perfected them - and that is just part of the reason why WoW has sold so many copies in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

first off, this is apples and oranges. they have preset content that HAS to be subversive and massive in order to make replay value of any kinda. also, they DO create new content all of the time. (i played NWNs and was/am a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls). secondly, they have to be set strong as stand alones, so that way they have something to span the gap between titles (which is why patches and new content are also added sporadically).

As an avid player of Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect, Diablo 2, the entire Elder Scrolls series - shit, just a lot of RPGs, I don't see Guild Wars "lacking" in content more than the other aforementioned games. With NWN, Mass Effect, and Knights of the Old Republic, you were meant to play through the main story and that was it. Were they bad because they didn't provide endgame? No. Were they bad because they didn't have a high replay value? No. They weren't bad, they were good games, just like Guild Wars - yet many GW for not providing new areas, new items, and in general just new content. Why do players feel so entitled to so much in Guild Wars yet not from "offline" games? Why does Guild Wars being an online only RPG mean it has to live up to so many standards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

from Guild Wars summary on wiki- "Guild Wars is an episodic series of multiplayer online role-playing games developed by ArenaNet and published by NCsoft. Three stand-alone episodes and one expansion pack were released in the series from April 2005 to August 2007."

Alright, here we see ANet labeling their games as "multiplayer online role-playing games" - just like me. Not an MMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

"The games in the Guild Wars series were critically well received[4][5][6][7] and won many editor's choice awards, as well as awards such as best value, best massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), and best game.[8] Guild Wars was noted for being one of the few commercially developed games in the MMORPG genre to offer online play without subscription fees,[9] its instanced approach to MMORPG play,[10] and the quality of the graphics and play for computers with low specifications.[11] In February 2008, NCSoft announced that 5 million units of games in the Guild Wars series had been sold."[/I]

Where do we see ANet claiming themselves as developing an MMO? The only mention is the rewards they've accepted, and you can't rely deny or lie about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

as for Anet claiming their product is or isnt an "MMO", the only dismissive comment that could have ever been possibly disputable, was someone i think around the time Proph came out, called GWs a "Competitive Online Role Playing Game". highly debatable whether or not this is a dismissal of the fact that GWs is actually not a MMO, or that the person was simply trying to make GWs look "different" for appeal.

Guild Wars Synopsis

Never will you see any mention on their site or their wiki stating Guild Wars an MMO.

They didn't not call GW an MMO to "be appealing", they didn't want to cater to the MMO crowd. But sadly that was out of their power, and why we're seeing ANet transition to a much more MMO-ish game in GW2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

please name other games that fit under "MMORPG"s definition, that are directly not classified as such.

Diablo
Diablo 2
Neverwinter Nights
Neverwinter Nights 2
Dungeon Lords
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate 2
Icewind Dale
Icewind Dale 2
Arcanum
.
.
.
Any RPG that you can play online.

Because the ONLY difference I'm seeing between those and Guild Wars is that Guild Wars can't be played offline.

And only being able to play online is a VERY thin definition, and many will disagree that that's all it takes for it to be an MMO.

Magikarp · Aug 11, 2008, 04:37 AM // 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Guild Wars is good, in fact it's great, but that's not what we're seeing it and many other MMO's being compared against. We're seeing it compared against it's features, and it's lack of. Bear in mind what I said about expectations, and people are calling it a bad game because it doesn't meet these expecations. Not the expectations of a "good game", but the having mounts, persistancy, high level caps, and other generic MMO perks.

i read it all Bryant, but tbh, this sums up where "MMO"s are being stereotyped in your opinion. in essence, this debate is extremely disputable.

Guild Wars broke the "generic mmo" scene, and now people are trying to claim it's not supporting the terminology that it blatantly falls under. MMORPG means exactly that, there is NO official suggested meaning behind that, end of story.

Konig Des Todes · Aug 11, 2008, 04:43 AM // 04:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkWasp

Well with that sort of thinking, GW isn't really needed... -snip over-exaggeration-

Honestly, it's not. GW is for our leisure, nothing more. No one needs video games, no one needs TV, books, movies, etc. These are things humans made to enjoy life and to balance out the hardships life brings. But they aren't needed, only wanted.

I'm not going to make any comments on Magikarp and Bryant Again's feud.

Magikarp · Aug 11, 2008, 04:52 AM // 04:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azazel The Assassin

Honestly, it's not. GW is for our leisure, nothing more. No one needs video games, no one needs TV, books, movies, etc. These are things humans made to enjoy life and to balance out the hardships life brings. But they aren't needed, only wanted.

I'm not going to make any comments on Magikarp and Bryant Again's feud.

not a feud, just a simple debate. if anything, its nice to even be able to have such an in depth conversation with such an admirable adversary as Bryant

.

Sora267 · Aug 11, 2008, 05:32 AM // 05:32

I'm gonna have to side with Magikarp on this one. Guild Wars is an MMO because of the fact that its online-only. All of its design choices orbit around that fact. It's not just an RPG which has online capabilities as a spare feature. It was built around those online capabilities, and would be a mediocre game if it could be played offline.

doudou_steve · Aug 11, 2008, 06:04 AM // 06:04

The only reason that people say it's not a MMo is: "well all areas are instanced duhhhh, in mmo(s), they have open worlds"!

So they qualify it as a CORPG.

Now we all know there are no more real competitions in Guild Wars.
And we know it isnt "mass"
Plus, with the introduction of heroes, where is the multiplayer?

So what do we get? - ORPG!

Ok It's settled, I won!!!!11!1

upier · Aug 11, 2008, 06:08 AM // 06:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarevok Thordin

At least you appreciate balance

That made me laugh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Not anymore it doesn't. The other options just got a whole lot stronger. When mesmers are getting a 100% reliable 4 pips, and eles are getting a 100% reliable 2 pips plus 48 free attribute ranks, or "the madness that is ether renewal," Soul Reaping is starting to look pretty weak by comparison. Whatever validity it may have previously had (which was very little in my view), the argument that "SR gives too much energy compared to other options" became patently false this past Thursday.

I am going to disagree just so that somebody out there doesn't get the idea that we actually all feel this way.
No need to waste your elite AND no need to waste even a skill slot to gain the energy.
The ability to passively gain energy 3 times every 15 secs. Which, when in battle happens pretty much every time. And when that happens that outdoes elite e-management.
Necros having access to 1 energy spells - which by definition IS just wrong - since a primary attribute should influence the balancing of skills (eg. the mesmers have skills with longer casting times because of FC - meaning necros should have more expensive skills because of SR.)
Like mentioned previously - curses and blood should be doable with GoLE and minions already are to powerful to buff them - which removes the need for more energy - or better yet it actually shows that it should be nerfed.

Edit:
It seems I didn't troll enough - so I'll add a bit more:
[lyssa's aura] compared to [oob].
For 4 pips of reliable regen we need to raise Inspiration to 14.
Which means we can compare OOB at 14.
One pip of e-regen equals 0.33 energy per sec.
OOB recharges in 15 secs. (Let's disregard the 40/40 sets which help OOB.)
Let's also simplify it a bit:
LA will regen 15*0.33*4=around 20 energy in 15 secs.
OOB gives 19 energy every 15 secs at 14.
LA costs 5 energy.
OOB 1.
Offering makes you sac 20% of your hp.
LA is an ench which means it can be stripped and it also requires a spell that targets a foe to be cast at least every 10 secs otherwise it stops.
OOB has a recharge of 15, LA 30.
Given the stupidity of the AI - removing the ench can be prevented and also being targeted after you sac the life with OOB.
Ohh and keep in mind that in PvE you can exchange armor - so everytime you activate OOB you can switch to a sup blood headpiece (raising your blood to 16 giving you MORE energy back!) - and switching to a non+60 hp set (which means a 40/40) set. That means you sac way less hp and you have the possibility of halving the recharge. Which is something you can not do with LA (well you can halve the recharge - but consider that the e-regen from LA doesn't stack - it doesn't serve you any good).
Which means OOB is very comparable to LA - in terms of being reliable.
On top of that - the necro can also invest a few points into SR and gain some energy passively.
Which means necro have a source of e-management comparable to LA (given what I said - it's actually probably better numerically).
That is IF you want to waste you elite on e-management.
I'd rather invest 14 into SR and have the chance to get 42 energy back every 15 secs.

So could you please stop spreading false information?

Is ER broken?
Yes it is. So we can't balance SR compared to it.
Unless the point is to have a fun PvE game instead - which seems to be the case based on the last update - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to buff SR.

Nerf SR please and stop the bad play it enables.

SpiritThief · Aug 11, 2008, 06:12 AM // 06:12

The update was ok, no where near great.

They also showed that they don't test, they actually play the game or they just complete morons.

[Vow of strength]

Snow Bunny · Aug 11, 2008, 06:14 AM // 06:14

Enough with the MMO vs. CORPG discussion.

Your generic video-game consumer will perceive it as an mmo with disregard for the finer points of its true styling.

Ontopic:

Anyone else enjoying [incendiary arrows] as much as I?

RavagerOfDreams · Aug 11, 2008, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Anyone else enjoying [incendiary arrows] as much as I?

I'm hating it TBH. The degen spam makes me sad. Although i'm sure rangers are loving it but while monking its not so fun.

Lady Raenef · Aug 11, 2008, 06:23 AM // 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

I'd pay a monthly fee if they'd clean the game up. Y'know, take off the hero cap, add new areas, rework spawning power, stuff like that.

Here's an idea: subscribed customers get to have a full hero party!

I'd totally subscribe to that

You're dedicated to this game. The second they'd charge a monthly fee, I'll move on to playing Mario Kart Wii more often. It would be the same as throwing $15 off a bridge every 1st of the month.

Lots of arguing over the definition of MMORPG. It's a game that's an RPG that is also online. Plain and simple. I won't read the wall of text.

Let's talk about the update now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Anyone else enjoying [incendiary arrows] as much as I?

With the addition of preparations. Yes'm.

Bryant Again · Aug 11, 2008, 06:34 AM // 06:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

i read it all Bryant, but tbh, this sums up where "MMO"s are being stereotyped in your opinion. in essence, this debate is extremely disputable.

Guild Wars broke the "generic mmo" scene, and now people are trying to claim it's not supporting the terminology that it blatantly falls under. MMORPG means exactly that, there is NO official suggested meaning behind that, end of story.

If Guild Wars "broke" it, why is it aiming to cater more towards that scene?

That's the biggest and most dreadful fact about all this. Guild Wars wasn't your standard MMO, and now it's aiming to be more like one. If people did not have such aims and expectations with GW1, we would not see such a direction for GW2.

As a whole, expectations were met. WoW, and many other MMO's have set that. Guild Wars didn't fit that mold, and ANet wants to be able to please a wider range of an audience.

That's why I've done my best to call Guild Wars what it is, an online role playing game. Didn't work, as you can see the direction GW2 is taking.