Curse

mariano · Apr 18, 2006, 12:19 PM // 12:19

For a game to be laveled MMORPG, which stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Rol Playing Game, it may be enough that the game is played online, that players meet with the form of avatars, that the avatars have some character and they can do together things like missions and adventures, embeded within a fictional story.

These MMORPG games may reach the status of Game World if all interactions relevantly related to the game can be performed within the game.

There are also Online Competitive Games in which players either do not interact by means of avatars, or in which the avatars interactions are restricted to the game competitive matches which might be within a tournament or not. Were there be a story line relatable to one of these competitive games, this story line is not played Online. And, these Online Competitive Games do not aspire to be Game Worlds.

By now Guild Wars has some features of a MMORPG and some features of an OCG, but it is not a Game World, because a great number of interactions are expected to be covered by means out-game interactions, like it is web interaction. For example, for a Rol Playing interaction like it is trade, there are web Action Houses. For a Rol and Competitive interactions as Guilds are, there are guild webs, guilds forums, and the guilds rank list is also an out-game, web based, list.

The question I would like to ask is, if you think that GW will ever become a Game World, with all or most of the relevant-to-the- game interactions being possible to be accomplished ingame. Thus making the RPG aspect a wholy ingame interaction; say that there should be an Auction House to make trade a fully ingame interaction. As well as making the OCG a wholy ingame interaction; say that a Guilds rank listing should be ingame and there should be ingame features like information boards about Guilds, and more Guilds' construction features. so that the OCG and the RPG were fully integrated ingame, enough as to relevantly becoming a Game World.

Or, if you think that GW becoming a Game World is irrelevant for GW, and it is better just to have a partial hibrid of OCG and RPG which full integration and completeness is get by means out-game web interactions.

Necrotic · Apr 18, 2006, 01:02 PM // 13:02

Well....it already is. Despite not having an in-game auction house or a way to check on guild rank in-game the only real difference between GW and EQ is the fact that you dont have persistant environments outside the towns and arenas in which you can interact with other player groups. Not yet.

The Bazaar in EQ was not always there to give players an easy way to sell their wares...nor was it always as convenient. And the only measure of a guild at times was the zones they raided regularly (Time flagged OMG!), sometimes not even that was a good way to determine the best guilds.

You seem to think that having a central trading area is neccassary for it to be considered a Role Playing game. Most relevant game interactions are indeed done within the game.

It is already a "Game World" but I wonder at your understanding of the term. It does need improvements....which I believe will come in time.

jackie · Apr 18, 2006, 01:12 PM // 13:12

Guild Wars is quite new game and it wanted to be something different than other MMORPGS out there.

Of course there is lots of tweaking here and there that would make GW even more fantastic gaming experience and gaming world, but that's why there are chapters coming out every 6 month to fix that.

Passing time = updates,tweaks, add-ons (stand-alone though ^^ )...= Even better gaming world.

mariano · Apr 18, 2006, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrotic

You seem to think that having a central trading area is neccassary for it to be considered a Role Playing game. Most relevant game interactions are indeed done within the game.

It is already a "Game World" but I wonder at your understanding of the term. It does need improvements....which I believe will come in time.

Well, if it seems that I think that GW is not a RPG, I must have expressed badly my view...

In my view, Guild Wars is a MMORPG, but it is not a Game World.

Now, the concept of Game World that I am writting about is "a game for which all relevant-to-the-game interactions can be fully accomplished in-game". I think that interactions like trade are basic and then are relevant-to-the-game, if this interactions are done by means of an out-game interaction the game can not be called a Game World, because it is not self-suficient in this relevant-to-the-game interaction.

Say, again, for example, discussing about how Guild Wars is or should be is not relevant to Guild Wars' game play, but the trade in the game is relevant to Guild Wars' game play. If this trade can not be done fully ingame to a relevant point and there is the need of web based Auction Houses, the game is not a World.

And the same, I think, about other aspects like Guilds' rank listing, information boards about Guilds, players looking for guilds and Guilds' looking for players, which at present have to be completed by means of web interaction. As long as these can not be relevantly accomplished ingame, there is no a World.

I think that this distinction does matter, nevertheless, not being a Game World is not wrong for a game, it is just about how we understand games and what it is a game.

Chilly Ress · Apr 18, 2006, 02:40 PM // 14:40

If GW adds an auction house, and maybe a few other things, it will be perfect, seeing as i love GW as is.

Suilebhain · Apr 18, 2006, 03:10 PM // 15:10

Guild Wars differs from games like EQ because it is story driven. This is why a true "Game World" environment is not truly attainable.

Being story driven, Guild Wars' adventure environment is instanced, based on the experience of the character. So, anything outside of the cities/settlements is dynamic and attuned to what has gone before. Once you perform a task, it it not available to do again - much like the flow of a novel.

There does not seem to be any indication that other things that contribute to a "Game World", like player economies/crafting and player housing/businesses, are in the works. This is not a bad thing, though, as such things tend to bog down the flow, creating a state of permanence that is not consistent or conducive to what I have seen so far in the setting.

Now, the one thing that could be done, but would require some effort on the part of the players, is to establish a "community", where characters and guilds are identifiable based on their reputations - good adventurers, honorable (or dishonorable) dealings, and so forth. For the most part, though, the general player base does not seem interested in this level of interaction.

Phaern Majes · Apr 18, 2006, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

I think that interactions like trade are basic and then are relevant-to-the-game, if this interactions are done by means of an out-game interaction the game can not be called a Game World, because it is not self-suficient in this relevant-to-the-game interaction.

Well that excludes every game ever made then. Because I can go to ebay and find items/gold for sell for every MMORPG. Which by your definition means they aren't "Game Worlds".

Not to mention you need to find a new word for that. To me that just means the world in which the game takes place. And if you are telling me that Tyria doesn't exist then you need to get some glasses or something.

Mandy Memory · Apr 18, 2006, 05:05 PM // 17:05

Guild wars needs to stay away from the MMO and go toward their CO.

Big Tony · Apr 18, 2006, 05:34 PM // 17:34

I think the question asked is wether GW will become a game within itself, with (almost?) all aspects of the game (trading, ranking, discussion) could be done in game without having to log out. I agree with one of the last posts regarding EQ, I stopped playing just after the marketplace was introduced and it was chaos when it first opened up.
GW is trying to create something a little different from the MMORPG we've come to know as "standard". While trading is a little difficult now, I dont think that it would take away from their status as a "Game World".
GW IS a game world, IMO. It's a submersive place we all tend to get a little lost in. A small issue with trading or guild organization offline shouldnt take away from what i feel is a fantastically crafted game.

Align · Apr 18, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

GUILD WARS IS NOT A MMORPG.
Why oh why do stupid-ass gaming magazines and sites keep calling it one? The only massive part of it is the lobbies/cities, and you don't go around calling Diablo a MMORPG because you can talk to a thousand players in the lobbies.

Kool Pajamas · Apr 18, 2006, 06:00 PM // 18:00

I'm no expert on MMO games since this is my first but I dont think Guild Wars is trying to be DIFFERENT than other games, they are trying to be BETTER than other games. They took out grind and player killing and other things people hate to make the game better. By doing that they have made it pretty different than other MMO games. GW does need improvements but I'm sure they will come.

Thats my take anyway.

Braggi · Apr 18, 2006, 06:17 PM // 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

Well, if it seems that I think that GW is not a RPG, I must have expressed badly my view...

In my view, Guild Wars is a MMORPG, but it is not a Game World.

Now, the concept of Game World that I am writting about is "a game for which all relevant-to-the-game interactions can be fully accomplished in-game". I think that interactions like trade are basic and then are relevant-to-the-game, if this interactions are done by means of an out-game interaction the game can not be called a Game World, because it is not self-suficient in this relevant-to-the-game interaction.

Say, again, for example, discussing about how Guild Wars is or should be is not relevant to Guild Wars' game play, but the trade in the game is relevant to Guild Wars' game play. If this trade can not be done fully ingame to a relevant point and there is the need of web based Auction Houses, the game is not a World.

I agree with Necrotic that your term "Game World" is not well defined.

There is no NEED for these web based services - the whole game can be played without ever refering to these services. They are convenience. As are team speak or other voice chat services. I can trade without ever using webauctions.

Outing myself as a dynosaur here: did you ever play UO? The game was consistent, as you could only hear what was said close to you. A market was really a market - people crowding the places in front of banks, offering mounts, weapons, houses, whatever. There was no chat client or a friends list, we were using ICQ at the time to notice when someone was online.

Did UO have a game world? Definitely.
Were there additional services out of the game's scope to improve the gaming experience? Of course. Because the model Origin used had severe restrictions. Like it being really hard to interact and communicate w/o being online at the same time and place.

If I really AM my avatar, then I don't mind making matches ingame. That's tedious but part of life. If I want to maximize gaming experience I want to cut this out. Most people with limited time want to.
Is voice chat efficient? nothing better to coordinate groups. But then there are several on the market already, and some people avoid it because often real voices make a poor match to game avatars. So why include it?

The same goes for your rankings, trade, etc. Factions will probably give successful guilds a better platform to display their achievements, but that is IMO motivational and does hardly impact "game world or not" at all.

Metanoia · Apr 18, 2006, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Align

GUILD WARS IS NOT A MMORPG.
Why oh why do stupid-ass gaming magazines and sites keep calling it one? The only massive part of it is the lobbies/cities, and you don't go around calling Diablo a MMORPG because you can talk to a thousand players in the lobbies.

QFT.

Why don't people who insist on callinging GW:P a MMORPG actually go and look up the definition of MMORPG first?

"MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game." -Wiki

The "Massive(ly)" part has nothing to do with an actual number of players but rather the way the game is structured.

mariano · Apr 18, 2006, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phaern Majes

Well that excludes every game ever made then. Because I can go to ebay and find items/gold for sell for every MMORPG. Which by your definition means they aren't "Game Worlds".

Not to mention you need to find a new word for that. To me that just means the world in which the game takes place. And if you are telling me that Tyria doesn't exist then you need to get some glasses or something.

In my view eBay trade is not relevant for this discussion.

What for do you talk about eBay?

mariano · Apr 18, 2006, 07:53 PM // 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braggi

There is no NEED for these web based services - the whole game can be played without ever refering to these services. They are convenience. As are team speak or other voice chat services. I can trade without ever using webauctions.

What are relevant-for-the-game-interactions

is the key to understand what I mean. People can play the game without ever refering to out-game services this is ok, but actually there are web based Auction Houses, and ingame item trade with ingame money is done out-game; this means that the game play is not enough satisfactory in this sense.

And with respect guilds management... what to say? Almost nothing is enough satisfactorily doable ingame, there is not even a chat channel devoted to guild search and member search... so let's talk about TS and ingame voice some other time, this may be a very interesting feature, but I suppose so so far to be seen...

I do not know the game you mention.

Wish the best.

Jagflame · Apr 18, 2006, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Guild Wars isn't a OCG, it's a CORPG (Competative Online Role Playing Game)

Although I don't really want to delve too far into the conversation, here's a quote from Wikipedia that basically explains it.

Quote:

Though often referred to as an MMORPG, ArenaNet coined the term CORPG (Competitive/Cooperative Online Role-Playing Game) to describe Guild Wars. This title describes the competitive PvP-oriented (Player vs. Player) design of the game or the cooperative PvE-oriented (Player vs. Environment) instances of the game, as well as serving to differentiate it from the standard, subscription-fee-based, MMORPG genre. Guild Wars does not support hundreds of players in combat, instead having large towns where people form groups of eight or fewer players who then fight in their own unique instance of the game world. "Guild Wars is not an MMORPG," said Jeff Strain, producer of the game.

Pandora's box · Apr 18, 2006, 10:09 PM // 22:09

GW will never become a game WORLD as long as its focused on skills. This simple fact makes that the environment is completely unimportant. Look at skills as playing cards and you'll understand what I mean. Gather the right cards, make the right combinations and play them out while admirering the seaside, snowy mountains or tropical forests... Those are nice pictures but its never a gaming world

Lampshade · Apr 18, 2006, 11:03 PM // 23:03

Name one thing that you NEED to get offline to do.

Sunai · Apr 18, 2006, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

Now, the concept of Game World that I am writting about is "a game for which all relevant-to-the-game interactions can be fully accomplished in-game". I think that interactions like trade are basic and then are relevant-to-the-game, if this interactions are done by means of an out-game interaction the game can not be called a Game World, because it is not self-suficient in this relevant-to-the-game interaction.

(Emphasis mine)

Your whole premise seems to be that you require web interaction in order to trade with players. You don't. You don't even need an auction house. You just need a trade button and a chat channel. There you go. Actually, even a chat channel is superfluous. Things like auction houses, chat channels, and forums just make it easier to do. But this is the same for a lot of games you might be labelling a "game world". I'd like to hear some examples, because I know of no game that is without a fansite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

Say, again, for example, discussing about how Guild Wars is or should be is not relevant to Guild Wars' game play, but the trade in the game is relevant to Guild Wars' game play. If this trade can not be done fully ingame to a relevant point and there is the need of web based Auction Houses, the game is not a World.

Trade can be done fully ingame. There is no need for auction houses. There is a desire for them. Why? It's not that people are complaining that it's impossible to trade. They're complaining that it's too difficult/boring. I concur, but I'm just here to be anal about your definition. Since trade can be fully done in-game, it is, by your definition, not a valid reason to say that Guild Wars isn't a "game world".

You could say, "Oh! But I meant trade isn't done easily.". But where is the line drawn? I wish I could just think my items sold, but whether it does or doesn't is not going to change the fact that you have all the tools you need to trade in-game anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

And the same, I think, about other aspects like Guilds' rank listing, information boards about Guilds, players looking for guilds and Guilds' looking for players, which at present have to be completed by means of web interaction. As long as these can not be relevantly accomplished ingame, there is no a World.

I have to say that I'm not sure which way to think with the guild rank listing. It would depend on if ArenaNet wanted tournaments entirely seperate from any role-playing world or not. For example, if guild battles and tournaments were things Tyrians loved to watch and enjoy, then not having a rank list in-game seems kind of counter-productive to the role-playing element. After all, the Tyrians know the guild rankings without having to "log out" or "alt-tab out" of their life to check. Unless They just liked the fight, and couldn't care less about rankings.

The others you mentioned are fully possible inside the game. In fact, I'm not sure how you think they can't be. Just go to LA1 and I'm sure you'll hear a few people spamming their guild. There you go: guilds looking for players. Once again, web interaction just makes it easier.

What about games that have their own web browser? You could do all of these things in-game, then, but it's still "web interaction" through a browser.

mariano · Apr 18, 2006, 11:37 PM // 23:37

I think that I do have nothing to add to what I have written to make it more clear. I try to apply the so called "principle of charity" whenever I read or talk; and I think that you too may be trying to apply it.

Be happy!

P.S.: if you do not know what is the "principle of charity" you may find out it with a search in the internet. Or, for example, in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity