Will Guild Wars ever become a Game World?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In my view eBay trade is not relevant for this discussion. What for do you talk about eBay?

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.

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.

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

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

(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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

probably, maybe get some sleep and carry on later? This is getting more and more unproductive, so I'll just leave it there.

*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.

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.

*aims a wicked blow at Metanoia* truce accepted

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*

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...

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

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.

In game auction houses = happy haggy