MMORPG vs. CORPG

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

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...

Toon Town.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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? ^.^

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.

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.

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?

So Diablo II is an MMORPG as well, eh?

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.

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.

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.