Curse

Sunai · Apr 19, 2006, 12:13 AM // 00:13

"You can't do x with this. Therefore, it is not a(n) y."
"But you can do x just fine."
"Guys, guys. You get the jist of what I'm saying, right? So you shouldn't pay attention to details, and should just open your mind up and agree with me more."

See how well that doesn't work out? No offense, but I've read some pretty strange things on the internet... who knows what would happen if I applied that philosophy to everything I've read.

d3kst3r · Apr 19, 2006, 02:48 AM // 02:48

The biggest problem preventing GW from becoming a true Game World is the fact that everything is instanced from Towns to Missions and everything else. Towns are like a chatroom/market. Mission areas is like an instanced Diablo 2 landscape designed to be played with friends and PvP is like fantasy Counter-Strike. Everything is instanced and there is no possibility of Player Killing therefore player interaction is very limited and lacks freedom.

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 07:22 AM // 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

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.

Because Wiki is not the ultimate tome of wisdom?

But I agree on the structure part.

I don't like the technical definition. The way something is done is often due to technical limitations which may change. I'd rather concentrate on the ingame consequences.

Most MMORPGs have instanced game worlds (UO, most recent example WoW). The part of the world no player can see is usually calculated only minimally or even not at all.

WoW is a hybrid, as 40%+ of server population are usually using instanced content. The MMO part is almost exclusively for leveling up. In a character's endgame instances are used almost exclusively, with the persistent game world being one big, uncomfortable lobby with long travel times and almost no relevant content left...
Ok, so there were raids on settlements, but this almost vanished after introduction of the battlefields, and it was nerfed before as players were unhappy that this could impede their questing (killing quest givers).
Other that that I can grief players by killstealing or PvP, if the server settings allow this.

What can I do in GW that I can't do in WoW?
I can meet anyone else playing GW with their main avater in game. No instanced server.
Always instant travel to already visited outposts.
I can only grieve my party or people in outposts.

What can I do in WoW that GW can't offer?
Hundreds of players can meet for events (like recently opening gates to new content) - but this pushes hardware limits and usually leads to really bad performance or crashes.
I can join (or rejoin) a party already in an instance.
I can grieve anyone who didn't escape into an instance.

In both games I have little to no impact on the game world. In UO I could at least build a house and influence the game world by setting up a trade post there, or a big rune library. So for practical reasons it doesn't really matter if the world is persistent or not.

Metanoia · Apr 19, 2006, 09:00 AM // 09:00

Because Wiki is not the ultimate tome of wisdom?

No kidding, but at least their definition didn't stop at "MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game".

MMO~ is a tool for describing a style of gameplay, which you yourself have used when referring to shared/persistant content. Their definition doesn't seem too innacurate to me.

...[snip] the rest [snip]...

Wait... So you're saying GW:P is a MMORPG because it's very similar to the 40% of WoW that isn't a MMORPG? Or are you saying that MMORPGs shouldn't be defined as having persistent worlds because a 60%-MMORPG (WoW) and a CORPG (GW:P) don't have 100% persistent worlds?

Edit: Eww... "callinging"...

Edit.. like 32 or something: Or... Have I missed your point entirely? *is pretty tired*

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 10:23 AM // 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

...[snip] the rest [snip]...

Wait... So you're saying GW:P is a MMORPG because it's very similar to the 40% of WoW that isn't a MMORPG? Or are you saying that MMORPGs shouldn't be defined as having persistent worlds because a 60%-MMORPG (WoW) and a CORPG (GW:P) don't have 100% persistent worlds?

No, I'm saying that the original definition of persistent doesn't make sense any more. Because the features originally linked to this persistence are linked no more.

If I compare Diablo 2 with Ultima Online, then this was a distinction. In the original UO I could have a lasting impact on the world (permanent offers in buildings, though no influence on spawn. Faction fights to controll towns and its traders). In D2 the impact was also there (like no respawn), but only on the personal, instanced version that vanished with everyone ingame leaving.

UO and other games that followed soon realized that allowing the player a lasting impact on the game world is a two edged idea, as it influences the gaming experience of other players in unpredictable ways. [side note - see the favor discussion in these forums]

Towns and outpost may work like a lobby, but they are an integral part of the game (running...). So one might argue that "the game world" as a whole is persistent, even if every single part of it is instanced.

Why? Take favor and its impact on access to game regions. There is unlimited possibility for events that influence the game world as a whole. Factions and the possibility to "control" regions will be another dimension.

another side note: CORPG is marketing speak of the ANet people. They may have it, if it helps to avoid ill-founded 1:1 comparisons between a subscription based game vs a subscription free MMO. For the sake of this discussion I tend to ignore it.

Metanoia · Apr 19, 2006, 10:35 AM // 10:35

Oh, I understand now... The game doesn't fall under the definition of MMORPG anymore so we'll just change the definition of MMORPG to match.

If I compare Diablo 2 with Ultima Online, then this was a distinction. In the original UO I could have a lasting impact on the world (permanent offers in buildings, though no influence on spawn. Faction fights to controll towns and its traders). In D2 the impact was also there (like no respawn), but only on the personal, instanced version that vanished with everyone ingame leaving.

That's right, there is a distinction. Changing the definition of a MMORPG so that the persistent world isn't required would make Diablo 2 now qualify as a MMORPG. You would now have two VERY different games under the same "MMORPG" label.

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 11:05 AM // 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

That's right, there is a distinction. Changing the definition of a MMORPG so that the persistent world isn't required would make Diablo 2 now qualify as a MMORPG. You would now have two VERY different games under the same "MMORPG" label.

I agree, but I didn't lobby to just drop persistent from the definition. To quote myself here:

So one might argue that "the game world" as a whole is persistent, even if every single part of it is instanced.

That is true for GW, because there are global values (like trader prices or favor) that persist even when everyone logs off from the game.

The basic difference between instanced and non-instanced is, that with non-instanced areas I can't choose with whom to play.

mariano · Apr 19, 2006, 11:08 AM // 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunai

"You can't do x with this. Therefore, it is not a(n) y."
"But you can do x just fine."
"Guys, guys. You get the jist of what I'm saying, right? So you shouldn't pay attention to details, and should just open your mind up and agree with me more."

See how well that doesn't work out? No offense, but I've read some pretty strange things on the internet... who knows what would happen if I applied that philosophy to everything I've read.

Sunai, you may be trying to make a parody of me, I think. In your previous mail you were triying to show an inconsistency in my argument by puting emphasis in my "can" imitating me because I put emphasis in a "can" of Braggi, but my can is followed by a modal adverb fully, so in my view I wrote a this way contextualized can: can be fully and not just can. Need I to explain you that this implicates a different intention in you than me? And need I to explain that I have made no parody of Braggi or any one. I was triyng to clarify what does it mean "relevant-for-the-game" or better "relevant-for-the-game-play". What you can do in a game may be enough to cover basic needs, but may be not enough relevant if many players actualy show to need something more by looking for it out-game. A simil may help: you do not need salt to eat potatos, but salt is relevant for a satisfactory experience eating potatos; you may get married with any person as, say you just need a women if you are a man, but getting married with a person you love is more relevant to you, so much that some persons do not get married unless they find their love... .

So please, as you say, no offense, this is again an attemp to clarify my intention if communications fails I take my part of responsability. That is why I wish you and all to be happy, because I do not know how to express myself better.

Metanoia · Apr 19, 2006, 11:14 AM // 11:14

So one might argue that "the game world" as a whole is persistent, even if every single part of it is instanced.

How does one tiny fragment of the game being dynamic equate to the game "as a whole" being persistent?

Ps. Diablo 2 has it's global SoJ-Super Diablo. So it's a MMORPG, too?

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 11:24 AM // 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

Diablo 2 has it's global SoJ-Super Diablo. So it's a MMORPG?

I don't understand this, sorry. Or if it refers to Stones of Jordan as a comodity, there are no ingame traders whose prices reflect past transactions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

Edit.. like 32 or something: Or... Have I missed your point entirely? *is pretty tired*

probably, maybe get some sleep and carry on later?

This is getting more and more unproductive, so I'll just leave it there.

Metanoia · Apr 19, 2006, 11:28 AM // 11:28

*continues head-butting Braggi in the side* Okay, truce.

Oh and yeah. Diablo 2 had a new super boss added in one of it's patches that was unlocked through the sale of SoJs to merchants. It was global, every 1000 or so sold (realm-wide) unlocked the super boss for 15 minutes or so.

mariano · Apr 19, 2006, 01:14 PM // 13:14

A comment about whether Guild Wars is a MMORPG. Or, a MMOC&RPG: Massive Multiplayer Online Competitive and Rol Playing Game.

In my view, it is such thing in the most relevant and beautifull manner. As in Guild Wars any player of the game may meet with any other player of the game and play together with them. Guild Wars may not be a Game World, in my view, but it is a World Game. Taking the best that internet has as a means of communication.

There are so many called MMORPG which exist in parallele non-communicated instances located in many servers, so that there are many separated players' communities who's avatars are living in non-communicated instances of the game. Can these kind MMORPG be called Massive... when the real thing is that the mass of players is divided? Can these MMORPG be called Multiplayer... when the real thing is that players are culturaly monotonous? Not in the stated sense of valuing internet as a means of world players communication, in this sense Guild Wars is a very special game. And, may be, Guild Wars is the only MMORPG which is a World Game at present.

Certainly that the aspect which may have moved Arena.net to make Guild Wars a World Game is to wish GW to be a Competitive Game. Sports is one of the few things in this world which goes beyond cultural, political and language barriers and GW benefits from this.

Cordially.

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 02:01 PM // 14:01

*aims a wicked blow at Metanoia* truce accepted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metanoia

Oh and yeah. Diablo 2 had a new super boss added in one of it's patches that was unlocked through the sale of SoJs to merchants. It was global, every 1000 or so sold (realm-wide) unlocked the super boss for 15 minutes or so.

Ah, missed that one, but then I was never really into battlenet.
Not massive enough (lobby is out of game), but yes, here's the big question.

Back to the initial definition:
...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

Hm, thought experiment: what would it take to make D2 a MMORPG?
A world might still be randomly created but then doesn't change any more.
Periodic respawn, even of Bosses (with timer).
Quests instanced for characters.
Enlarge the world so that 500 players can be online at once on a server, and include all difficulty levels into one game world.
Don't switch of the game any more, because no reset is needed.
Is it an MMORPG now?

It is now massive, multiplayer, and persistent - stull I puke at the thought

.
So what is missing?

That was why I invoked the original UO (I never played EQ). For lack of computer power, the game world was seperated into zones which were computed independently (but you could notice the lag when crossing zones). What happens if everyone leaves a zone and stays away for 5 minutes? Calculation for one thing is reduced to a minimum. It is not even excluded that a zone is reset when entered by the first player. Thats a technical detail. Is there, in a world with respawn, a difference between a repopulated zone and a freshly initialized one? I doubt it.
WoW has the same sterile feeling to it - except for some events and named bosses (with triggers and time stamps), all the marks a player leaves on the world are footsteps in the sand, as a rule gone after 5 min. Auctions 24h max, mail even longer, great.

So my question is - is persistence really exactly and only the technical feature of not switching off the computer, respawning stuff instead of reinitializing areas? For me instancing is just a design feature to keep griefing at bay.

In a world where any player's traces are gone after 5 minutes, what defines "continue to exist and evolve"? What defines the "state of the world" in game context? It is surely more than an event and the state of a few named high end bosses. And its more than the state of the spawn which reapears after 5 min anyway.

Its an interesting question, because Factions' changes imply that gw players will have a lot more impact on the world than wow players. The game system might even allow contested PvE areas (i.e. instanced PvE maps with 2 rivaling groups, would need special maps) *dream*

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano

There are so many called MMORPG which exist in parallele non-communicated instances located in many servers...
Can these kind MMORPG be called Massive... when the real thing is that the mass of players is divided?

Ah, well, 5000 players on a server is definitely massive.
But your comment is certainly my biggest gripe about other MMORPGs. Sure I privately knew a lot of people playing WoW, but scattered over a dozen servers...

Snowman · Apr 19, 2006, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Yes, its not an MMORPG, By ArenaNets own description of the game its a CORPG, as has already been mentioned.

The reason why Game Magazines and the such classify it as an MMORPG is because..well.. there is no other clasification to put it in!

If there was a CORPG classification or chart then Guildwars would be the only one in that list. xD

People also need to keep this 'Comepetative' word in mind! It does have a good RPG side which is fun and entertaining, but its certainly not 'MASSIVE' as the 'M' in MMORPG implies.

Also the 'Competative' definition of GW means that it is uniquely GLOBALLY competative, unlike the PvP of WoW, which is not true PvP because you are limited to fighting ONLY persons on that server alone (of which there are many)

However an MMO Version of GW, in my humble opinion would be FAR superior than that shabby excuse of an MMO that is Dungeons & (look theres no..)Dragons

Braggi · Apr 19, 2006, 04:47 PM // 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

People also need to keep this 'Comepetative' word in mind! It does have a good RPG side which is fun and entertaining, but its certainly not 'MASSIVE' as the 'M' in MMORPG implies.

Well, it has a story, but good RPG?

For me characters and setup are too shallow (or maybe determined, as there's a story told) for this. Mechanics support the competitive part all right.

massive:
When I walk around in ascalon I really wonder how many traffic the game engine could manage. Ok, the traffic is greatly reduced by removing pets, weapons and effects. But then, entering WoWs main cities reduced a lot of computers to 5-10 frames per minute

. As was my machine when approaching 40-60 players fighting for the ususal focal villages.
Could they, technically, handle say 30 vs 30 players?

An ingame mass reunion surely has its charm, but more often than not fewer players make a more agreeable game experience. The more players I need for an event, the more external organization is needed, and a lot of casual players will never see this content. Also gearing up often needs time, which must stay in relation to the event time. In WoW usually smaller (10-15) battlefields are prefered - less time and people needed, for better return.
Why do so many players still go to the "big", 40 man instances? Better item rewards.

But I would definitely not say GW is "less massive" than WoW, just because group size is limited. WoW standard group size is five.

Haggard · Apr 19, 2006, 04:56 PM // 16:56

In game auction houses = happy haggy