GW is a: ???

Alright, we all know GW isn't an MMORPG. If you didn't, now you do.

Alright, maybe..kinda...but FPS, Im not sold...'

So anyhooo, GW needs an acronym of its own, so we can all call it what it is. Dungeons and Dragons online looks to be using the same format as GW, instanced areas with larger common 'districts.' Diablo II first came out with it, kinda. We need a name for these types of games. Yes, Im anal.

How about MIRPG

Mutiplayer
Instanced
Role
Playing
Game

Any ideas? Or am I just retarded?

(drools)
(TATER TOTS!)

I just classify it as an Multiplayer Action/RPG in my books

You dont understand, Im really anal. It needs a name! Cause if people say "its a multiplayer action/RPG," I wont really know what they mean...there is too much room in that description.

I stick by my MIRPG!

mine is MMOA/A (Massively Multitype Action/Adventure)

Well it does have action and adventure elements, although there's a HUGE lack of puzzles... =\

ANet coin it as a CORPG. Silly, but it rolls right off the tongue.

Competitive Online RPG.

MMCRPG - massively multiplayer cooperative role playing game
same as mmorpg but cooler

That one gets my vote, just because it has no RPG part, GW just doesn't leave enough choices up to you for it to be a proper RPG.

well any game that at least has emotes in it is a RPG at its least. i have played games that *say* they are RPG's but have no way other than using stuff like *sits on the ground* or ((Picks his nose)) to give it some RPing.

so Massively Multiplayer Co-op Action Adventure (with Emothes) lol...

MMCOAAE

Time Sink

TS

Lol depending on what city and district you are in, id swear people had ddr pads attached to their comps.

This game doesnt need a title for a genre, just like many other games do not need one, because there is no direct competition existing at the moment. Adventure game is the closest fit to it though.

Looking at its box...

*Free online play*

GW is a single-player-RPG-trying-to-pass-itself-off-along-the-likes-of-WoW-and-EQ-and-is-failing-massively-at-that.

Think about it, what does *Free online play* on the box imply?

1. I don't see these on games like HL2.. or Doom3.. or heck, 90% of the titles out there.
2. Erm, online play is the ONLY mode of play. There is no offline play for that matter.
3. It says in the back that players will enter into a "world of adventure". Yawn.. what adventure? And where is the dynamically growing world? Apart from the growing number of idiots making their way through their game there has been no growth at all.

GW is a product of what happens when marketers try to stick too many buzzwords together, and now the devs are cracking heads and thinking hard on how to reconcile the differences.

That's what GW is all about.

It's an action/online RPG.

I just hope more of their art and ideas will get realised in future updates and expansions.

I agree with Watersong: simply calling Guild Wars on Online Action RPG is good enough for me.

I don't see why an Online Action RPG is worthy of consideration for subscription based gameplay then, because when the box says *FREE* online play, that's exactly where it is trying to skew the perception.

Who would pay a monthly fee for a "Online Action RPG"?
Why is it worth advertising and highlighting prominently on the box then?

Reverse reverse psychology eh?

Obviously GW is a TEAMBASED ONLINE RPG, a TORPG.

An "action RPG" is something like Diablo or Dungeonsiege, and I frankly don't see much resemblance to GW. I don't consider GW more "action" than e.g. KOTOR or Baldurs Gate.

To be honest, after playing Everquest 2, I don't see much difference between EQ2 and GW either. Except you don't run in to other players while out questing, and/or have to camp respawning monsters, big fricking whoop.

So I've no problem considering GW a MMORPG. It's far more similar to other entries in that genre than it is to anything else, the only difference is that _all_ instead of _some_ missions are instanced.

Dreamcast much?

The genre that inspired the term mmorpg invovled a bit more than having multiple people running around and gaining levels. One of the big differences is the persisting world that they exist in. GW does not have a persisting world outside of the towns and each district is treated like a seperate server by comparison. An example of the introduction of the unique intstancing that occured within FFXI as a means to introduce more challenge within the pve realm. It also had the side effect of inclusive rather than exclusive content, allowing for more people to experience a greater portion of the game at the same time. Opposed to some of the failings of eq1 (beta *cough*) that FFXI had alot of concepts derived from, which is amusing considering how many concepts eq2 has derived from FFXI. Many of the online rpgs also have a learn by doing system, which was inspired from either UO or the elder scroll series, which causes more of a time sink, but does shape the character through use rather than how many things are killed. It can be reverse engineered to experience gain but whatever.

I would not, however, begin to describe those types games as action or adventure style games due to the pace of the game and the focus on the character development or world progression. GW on the other hand fits better into those types of catagories, due to the largely available quick and easy solo play for pve and the non-persisting effect of the actions the character has on the world around it. For instance, after you defeat the lich at the end of the game, the shouter at frontier gate still persists in stating that the world is comming to an end, while rambling on about the flameseeker prophecies. GW also has more of a linear progression within it, while other games do not. Sure you can jump to different points in the story line, but you cant change sides or do anything different other than either ignore the story line or move through it. Typically this is why some have frowned on the console based rpgs due to how inflexible they are, but the popularity usually revolves around the combat system, story telling, and the pace of the game for consoles.

I don't understand why traditional mmorpgs are even called "rpgs". Usually they don't have a bit of roleplaying in it. Unless you consider killing endless amounts of mobs roleplaying......I know I don't . Mmorpgs like Eq and the many clones don't resemble rpgs at all. They are more like chat rooms with fantasy graphics and rpg elements thrown in. Just my opinion though.

MMORPGs allow you to do exactly what the RP part stands for. Role play. You CAN grind to the max level or you can be a fishermen who's secretly the strongest player around. Anybody who threatens to steal your spot might just meet your friend, Mr. Sharp stick of DOOM.

It's an MMORPG aimed at being more competitive. Anyone who calls it a CORPG is a brainwashed fanboy. Yes, it's instanced, and, yes, the PvP experience is a bit different, but it's still massively multiplayer, it's still online, and it's still an RPG. There isn't a whole lot to justify calling it a CORPG (especially since release).

No, I've said it before, I'll say it again. It isn't a MMORPG. First, I would argue that none of the games out there are RPGs anyway, as I've said in some posts about what defines role-playing. Second, while the O is acceptable, as is the second M, the first M isn't. It is in no way a "massively" multiplayer game. Massively multiplayer refers to the sharing of a world by massive numbers of people.

GW is more like an online chess server. Thousands of people all in the lobby at th e same time, hooking up to play "instanced" games of chess. Once in a chess game you play vs your opponent (and in GW you can play vs an AI, with other players) but that's the extent of interaction. After the chess game the ladder is updated if it was a ranked match of some sort and you return to the lobby to have another game. Many chess servers offer multiple types of game and multiple levels of play - corresponding to more difficult missions etc... Guild Wars is no more an MMO game than chess is - the mere fact that many people are online playing it doesn't make it an MMO game. Heck, Yetisports has head to head penguin smacking now, with tens of thousands online at a time in a free java ghame; that's obviously an MMORPG right, lots of players, multiplayer game, online, play the role of a penguin smacking yeti...

But that's not what MMORPG means - it refers to a distinct genre in which the world is persistant and the massive number of players are all online in the same game together, in a persistant world - like 2000 player chess, on a really big chess board, in which any changes to the board configuration affect all players etc....

Edit: Oh, and I'm not a fanboy. I like the game, but I am also quite critical of it. I just happen to see the ways it differs from an MMORPG, which some people apparently can't perceive. Maybe it's like being colourblind: "Genreblind" a genetic condition whose sufferers can't distinguish between a 2d sidescroller and a FPS, between Zork and Neverwinter nights, and between an MMORPG and an instanced online action RPG (or whatever the hell title you choose to use for it).

I agree with Epinephrine, who'se name I've just given up trying to pronounce (so sorry, madam).

It's Multiplayer, it's online, it's competitive, it can be cooperative, it's fantasy, it's action, it's strategy, it's not RPG. So what do we have?

MOCCFAS-Norpg. Or, if you ask me, CAMOG (Competitive Action Multiplayer Online Game).

Haha, you have no idea. Play a REAL mmorpg and then get back to us mmkay?

I liked that MIRPG dealie, but let's do IMRPG instead because it doesn't feel as silly to say.

-sam

-Diomedes

GW is a: Long and hard journey should A.net and NCSoft continue to fund it.

Alright then. So we have Competitive Multiplayer Online "RPG" (RPG in quotes, cause most of them aren't really)... All multiplayer games are competitive, and with few exceptions, all online games are multiplayer. So all we really need to say is ""RPG""... but since that's not really true unless you RP, which is kinda hard in GW... well call it a...

"game"

uhhh.. I'ma call it an MMORPG...cuz that's what it is.

Lol - I'm a guy But don't call me Sir, I work for a living.

And it's epinephrine (hear it)

Edit: Doh! Someone already posted the pronunciation!

ah I get it.

I would've said something like "epinefrìne" (by all likelyness, because I'm italian), you pronounce it "epinéphrine". Actually it's not that bad to pronounce, but it's complex and while I got that it was a chemical complex (sounds like one, doesn't it?) I have no clue what it is.
".... also called ADRENALINE"!? Now THAT is clever.

And DOH! For some reason I thought you were a lady ;p Now that I think of it, wasn't it you that complained about the use of "rape" as a way to define victory over mobs in another thread? Agreed with you back then, respect rises.

On topic: I don't really think it's much of a "cooperative" game. The only cooperative part of it are missions, and you can do most with "hired" henchmen. The competitive part is much more obvious and "charged" in terms of game advancement.
JMNERHO. "CAMOG"! Or CAMOIG if you want "instanced" in it.
A

CORPG

Its right on the site

Hence my character names:
Andrea Nile
Neal Andrei
Daniela Ren
Lana Erenid



I'm fine with CORPG; it sets it in a separate genre, and it's the name ANet chose - I don't agree with it as a description, I think MIRPG or IMRPG is better, possibly with "action" worked in to emphasize that it's really more of a hack and slash game: MIARPG looks like an RPG that was last seen in heavy combat though...

For the OP, who wasn't convinced about GW's FPS lineage. Let me ask, name another RPG, on or off line, that has active dodging. Now, name an FPS (made in the last 4 years) that doesn't have active dodging. How many RPG's games have and need the ability to strafe?

LMAO! That's awesome!

-sam

This is a quantitative, not a qualitative difference. The "true" MMORPGs also have both instanced and persistent content, the difference is just the relative balance.

Also, GW _is_ massively multiplayer, it's online, and it's an RPG. That, to me, suggest it's a MMORPG.

The subdivision into districts is if anything less restricting than the watertight subdivision into servers the "true" MMORPGs have, as you can move between districts at will.
Again, I see no difference. In EQ2 I could kill an Orc boss, then all I had to do was wait two minutes and kill him again. Or, more often, have someone else steal my kill. The world was completely static.
In GW at least *some* things do change. Not only pre/post searing, but also quest bosses disappear - you only have to lift the siege of Piken Square once, for instance.

Also, FWIW, I'm told WoW is highly soloable, even more so than Guildwars.
The only RPG I've played which had as wide latitude in which order to do things, and as weakly railroaded story, as Guildwars, was Morrowind.
Pretty much all PC RPG's are very linear; the IMO best cRPG ever, Planescape: Torment, is linear as Autobahn, and the same goes for e.g. KOTOR. Not incidentally both KOTOR and PS:T have very strong storylines.

Linearity means ability to tell a story. Morrowind and Guildwars both have unusually weak storylines, and consequently an unusually high degree of flexibility. I mean, you can even completely bypass the central event which takes place late in the game, that is surely not linearity.

I do frown on traditional japanese console-style RPG's, but for their illogical and bizarrely convoluted stories (which I, frankly, tend to find childish), the generally very poor controls, and that I simply don't like manga.

Let's go through it, letter by letter.

Massively- A hell of a lot of people playing this baby. And sure as hell, I can walk into Lion's Arch and see districts loaded to the brim with internet idiots. That's massive, alright. If Massive refers to world size, then Guild Wars may in fact be the most massive game I've played. The map is ridiculously large- I choked when I saw how big it was.

Multiplayer- Other people play with you. Being that I group with more people than I ever did in WoW, which is an "official" MMORPG, this one applies.

Online- The internet is used to play the game. And sure as hell, I tired unplugging my modem and playing, and I couldn't. So this one's good.

Role
Playing- this is a singular term, but two words. It refers to playing the part of any person other than yourself- I play a Blood Magic Necromancer, commonly reffered to as a Vampire. Being that I'm not a Vampire in real life we can conclude that I am, in the lowest sense of the term, Role Playing.

Game- Something I do for fun, to relax, or something which does not take place within the context of reality. To me, Guild Wars is a game, not a way of life.

Therefore, I have coined the term "MMORPG" for Guild Wars.

hey...

wait a second...

Let's go through your argument:

Massive is different from massively - massively is an adverb. Given that it modifies the word "multiplayer", that would suggest that you play with "massive" numbers of players. You don't, most of the game is spent with 7 or fewer players, and in PvP you may have as many as 23 others around. Hardly massive. As for people playing, Masive numbers of people are playing games like Penguin toss, so that isn't a valid reason, and tens of thousands are playing online chess at the moment. A First Person Shooter would thus be Massively Multiplayer as well.


No argument, it's multiplayer.

No argument, it's online.


This is no more role playing than CounterStrike is - you play the "role" of a terrorist or counter terrorist. Heck, Monopoly is role playing then; you play the role of an investor in real esate, controlling areas of town for additional financial reward. Give me a break, it isn't Role-Playing.

Yup, it's a game. So I'd agree to call it a MOG if you want, and I'll even say that since other titles get away with calling their games RPGs it can as well, so a MORPG. I think that is a genre with so many games that it doesn't distinguish GuildWars from CounterStrike or Civilzation Online (yeah, sure its an RPG, unless you really are the leader of ancient China).

In the pve environment you never interact with more than 8 human beings. That is not what id describe as massive in any sense of the word. I wouldnt describe phantasy star online as a mmo either. Arguing that the district like server settings wouldnt be much different from arguing that all online shooters are mmo like planetside. The difference is quantity of interaction within the game area, not the staging areas.

You havent played EVE online then i guess. That is the culmination of the singular world instancing that other games have been striving towards, however other games boast player bases larger and make server limits as a consideration for performance. There are also content issues to consider as well with an over-inflated playerbase on a singular server. However, eve also posseses a unique instancing of quest style missions that are generated on demand without changing to a unique environment. There are other problems with that system, but it is certainly more intuitive than alot of other systems out there that are not mmo based attempting to cater to every player.

That is the difference between a persisting world that mmo games can boast that other games can not. There are advantages to both, but to try and vaugly make the connection due to the playerbase size doesnt make a game a mmo.
True, but every time you enter piken square it completely refills. It is not like a unique event found in other games where it is something to beat back and never return. Several quests styles in other games also have that style of run once, but GW is different, where you can watch prince rurik die over and over again by repeating the same mission. Typically plot events in mmo games occur once, or once per character involved. Even in standalone games you dont have a circular repetition of plot events.

Try fable or jade empire for consoles to see where you can have both linear and non-linear progression, while still retaining a good story telling element. Even within FFXI, you have the freedom to choose which empire to serve and see the different sides to the same story as the player sees fit. The nice thing is how many of the location based quests will reflect back upon the general story for that location creating a continutiy in plot revolving around the player within the mmo environment. This is largely absent in many games today. The GW equivilant would be to find the body of little john, who may or may not have been the same guy you gave the cloak to, but later group with. My first thought was, isnt this guy supposed to be dead, upon reaching yak's bend.
Tastes vary, but there is bad and good from any cultural origin. Personally i cant stand american television, but that doesnt stop people from liking it or state that it is award winning.

How about

GRIND-WARS

Grind Ridiculously Introduced Not Done Wisely And Really Stupid

hmm MMOA.....do you think they purposely intended it this way.........MOA BIRD.....interesting