Great update! What do we get next week?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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

That made me laugh.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

With the addition of preparations. Yes'm.

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.

no one fully knows what direction GW2 will take, and while theres no dispute on the officially released information, you cant take away, nor change that that is GWs1, which still follows (in its own way) the proper parts to be a MMORPG. As for GW2, im personally excited simply because i fully support the game i've been playing faithfully for 3 years, but at the same time, im extremely disappointed with the current list of promised changes for GW2, simply because (and i know im not the only one) i played GW1 for the change from the so-called "traditional" MMO.

if all of the games were just like WoW, we wouldnt have any variety, and there would be no games to appeal to the no-grind, skill over time type of player. overall, minus the high level cap, GW2 should (according to anet) still follow the GW1 build, only having a more persistent world and a more exuberant engine.


but yeah... thats enough off topic chatting :P i forfeit for the sake of the thread haha.

on topic, i really like the new Melandru Shots effects after some testing.. discuss?

They didnt nerf wonding strike. What massive fail.

since GW is dead, what are some other games that are good with a living online community besides WOW?

Re: organising heroes: I normally use the party search screen to select heroes rather than the party organisation screen - that's large enough to be convenient for selecting heroes. Same with henchmen!

Regarding the avatars and shouts: I don't know about avatars of the bad guys (especially if ANet want to keep Dhuum and Menzies mysterious, while Abaddon is, well, destroyed) but an Avatar of Kormir could be good to see. Possibly have it be acquired as a quest in the same zone as the Razah quest.

As for the Paragon suggestions... I like'em, but only one of them should be elite, and they should be suitable for chaining... :P

Picking this snippet out of the general discussion to make my own comments:

I agree in principle. Semantics aside, it's a very different game to the 'traditional' MMO, so it's not really fair to judge it by the same standards. We could argue about whether the definition fits until the cows come home, but that seems to be the only thing you're arguing over.

Something brought to mind the question that was asked in one of the interviews about what one of the developers thinks of how everything vaguely ORPGish gets compared to WoW and the reply boiled down to "That's fine, what I'd like to see is for them to all be compared to GW as well."

Specifically, what brought this to mind was an observation while following the Starcraft 2 development that whenever the Blizzard fanboys wanted to praise WoW by ragging on something else, it was invariably GW that they chose. That they generally did so by making comparisons that I would say actually put GW ahead aside, it's actually an unintended compliment, in that its a tacit admission that Guild Wars is the nearest competitor (in the US, anyway. I believe Lineage is pretty big in Korea).

Of course, Guild Wars GOT there by being different... which we're seeing conflicting signals from ANet, in that in their interviews they point out that they're aware that directly competing with WoW without having some form of differentiation is a losing game, while on the other hand appearing to move closer to the 'traditional' MMO with the announcements of high level caps and, more recently, phat lewts for PvE. My hopes is that they'll turn out to be relatively minor, about the same effect as titles have now (post-Ursannerf) with a bit more choice about how to gain your levels. That, I think I can accept as a compromise.

Anyway, back on topic (bolded for those who may have tuned out to avoid wall-of-text)... I'd agree that there are some good things about the update and some not-so-good things, but the important thing is that ANet have showed that they're still willing to shake things up. I suspect the next update will be smaller, but at least now we can see that they are (once again) caring about the state of the old game.

And regarding Inciendary Arrows... haven't actually taken it out for a spin yet, but just considering the possibilities... Ohhhhh yeah. Ohhhhhh yes...

My bad, didn't really read the posts between you two . Maybe some other time.

I do the same thing, which is why it is minor .

Those skills were jokes actually >.> Although being able to capture an "Avatar of Abaddon" from Varesh in Ruins of Morah would be sweet.

I am a paying customer according to Guild Wars' EULA.

I did not choose this business model, ArenaNet did.



They have the responsibility to provide quality control or potentially lose customers.

Besides, I'm not asking for new content, I'm only asking for the existing content which does not meet the high standards I've come to expect from ArenaNet to be revised.


On a side note, I would advise against the use of the "fixed it for you" meme.

It's horribly overused and makes you come over as an unmannered pig while presenting an otherwise valid argument.



I realise I've only paid once and that ArenaNet is not forced to provide me with a satisfactory experience.

I'm only trying to defend my and your customer privileges. Privileges, not rights.

In the end, I believe this will be to the benefit of ArenaNet as well.


I'm biased towards Warriors, you're biased towards Dervishes.

Which is fine, as they should both be treated equally.



As for useful Warrior elites, sure thing, all you need in PvE is Dragon Slash.

Which is exactly why I'd like to see the other less useful elites become somewhat useful again.

Even if that means placing Dragon Slash on the chopping block.


I don't ask for every little thing to be fixed. Every game has flaws.

I ask for the major eyesores to be cauterised.



And this week's update did just that.

It was a bloody good start.


Please sir, can I have some more?


Strike, good sir. Magehunter Strike.

You will get a lot of nerfs to skills that are buffed to OP levels from this update.

You will get another stupid PvP weekend. Why do PvPers always get everything?



(psst, Divine, am I doing it right?)

in your opinion, what are these OP skills (serious question, not sarcasm).

so far the only really out of balanced skills in my eyes are maybe Air and maybe Quivering Blade (possibly). AoF and VoR sit right on the cusp of being a little op as well, as does IArrows.

GW2 is going to be like Perfect World.

Perfect World is a free to play MMORPG where you can select different classes with each their own attributes. You can level very high and it takes a long time. You encounter people everywhere on a single world map without loading times and can party up with everyone. You can fly (Elf), turn into beasts, swim underwater and jump.

You can also challenge other people or kill them for their items at a certain point and guilds can make war to conquer parts of the world.

The game can be downloaded for free, registered for free. Currenlty only in English and makes money with an online store that sells special ingame stuff (which isn't needed to play the game, things like "obsidian armor" and "minipets" but different).

link: www.perfectworld.com.my/

No.

Please don't talk about GW2 when we know very little about it.

That wasn't so much a discussion of GW2 as a blatant plug for another game.

How much do you get paid for that?

er....what does this have to do with the updates? idiot


anywho - I don't honestly think that anything can compare to the excellent destruction of ursan

but yer lots of skill nerfs - im thinking....especially PvE skills - asura / norn are mental now () not QQ but bit weird....ebon is fine lol ftw

Aye, so wouldn't new features do just that? Make the game more enjoyable?


I guess there's just two types of players: The types who like balancing updates and things that directly effect the main gameplay, and those who'd love it if they just randomly added fishing.

This is the perfect example why the GW community fails.

I'm just saying what I think that GW2 will look like and from what we know it sounds much like pefect world, which I downloaded last week.

If you disagree and think it will look different then discuss, but for now you posted flamebait.

you cant post just anything you want about a subject (especially that one) that has no factual evidence, and thats why he said that. if you feel it will be like the game you mentioned, thats fine, but dont hypothesize about such a controversial subject, or you will feel the wrath of a lot of players around here.... trust me... i know most of these psychos (jk guys :P)

Maybe I am a psycho as well. :P
I don't think that you know me.

We see things differently but share the same concern.

I'm a very avid WoW player, playing just a month or so after release. I fully support and play Guild Wars not because it's "not WoW", but because it's so untraditional - and I find it much more similar to other RPGs, anyways - from your traditional MMO. Warriors aren't tanks, no threat meters, classes aren't set into strict chores and duties, it's made to be "pick up and play" and not last you nearly your whole life - things that are expected and standard in your typical MMO.

When I first started playing it, GW felt so anti-WoW that I just couldn't call it an MMO - not because it was "bad" but because it would be unjust to give it such an ill-favored and improper title.

But that's the thing - we *do* have those types of games. They're just not MMOs.

Granted, Guild Wars may have set a standard. But I turn that notion away seeing as how even ANet themselves are starting to back away from it.

It's not even a problem anymore.

Um updates are good and all, but has anyone realised that at.


16# death magic, Necro's can only spawn 8 minions?

hasnt anyone seen this??

also... enchanted hammers in CoF now have hammer bash.

Gg anet. Nty for letting us know...