I think Abrahmm Just sailed the boat for him. Cause I think GW fits into everything that MMORPG.com considers an MMO.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
Millions of players into one VW? Rofl, gimme a fekking break.
GW is no more massive than CS.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
Stop name-calling and start arguing instead. Oh wait, that takes skill.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
I think Abrahmm Just sailed the boat for him. Cause I think GW fits into everything that MMORPG.com considers an MMO.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
Millions of players into one VW? Rofl, gimme a fekking break.
GW is no more massive than CS.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
Stop name-calling and start arguing instead. Oh wait, that takes skill.
It is also pretty obvious you can not read either.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
I am looking at this trying to figure out where I referred to you as anything but a so called "gamer". Unless gamer is now somehow a negative term. I sure hope not.
Anyway, I said you do not know what you are talking about, but I did not call you a name.
Speaking of skill, reading is a skill. Try to learn that one first before telling me to learn one.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
I think Abrahmm Just sailed the boat for him. Cause I think GW fits into everything that MMORPG.com considers an MMO.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
With that definition the Blizzards BNET is an MMORPG to, as it puts millions of people in the same "virtual world".
However for me to become a virtual world you should, theoretically, be able to move freely in it and have the possibility to meet anyone on that server. That is not possible in GW as 99% of the people are "hidden" in their own semi-private instances. And each instance holds what, 16 people, at most?
Sorry but if that is an MMORPG then any multiplayer game that can support 16 people in the same session would be a MMORPG. CS would be an MMORPG, UT and so on, and they are not. Neither is GW.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
Oh, and FYI I do question WoW as well. It has been stretching the definitions, but it does make it IMO, because you can potentially run into all players in the open world.
WoW's endgame (raid instances/BGs) has nothing to do with MMO, however.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
Furthermore instances are often always semi-private. Meaning only a very small subset of players can enter it.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
And you have absolutely no idea if that is true or not because that situation would never happen.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
1. A happening or occurring; an occurrence; an occasion.
This has happened in three instances.
2. A case occurring; a case offered as an exemplification or a precedent; an example; a token.
It was the only instance in which a direct copy, even to matters of detail, appeared to have been made.
3. (obsolete) A piece of evidence; proof.
4. (computing) In object-oriented programming: a created object, one that has had memory allocated for local data storage; an instantiation of a class
An instance is nothing more than a closed off section of a program for memory reduction.
Eve sectors of space are instances broken down into the same shard or server. It is broken down this way to reduce memory allocation and strain on a server.
0.0 - 1.0 sectors of space are all instances of the shard the entire populous eve play on.
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
Guild Wars is an MMO. The only difference is that ever zone is like a dungeon in WoW... (only imo much more interactive and interesting) so that's that.
I think Guild Wars is under-rated but I'm not going to try to convince people otherwise. Especially this late in its life.
I think Abrahmm Just sailed the boat for him. Cause I think GW fits into everything that MMORPG.com considers an MMO.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
With that definition the Blizzards BNET is an MMORPG to, as it puts millions of people in the same "virtual world".
However for me to become a virtual world you should, theoretically, be able to move freely in it and have the possibility to meet anyone on that server. That is not possible in GW as 99% of the people are "hidden" in their own semi-private instances. And each instance holds what, 16 people, at most?
Sorry but if that is an MMORPG then any multiplayer game that can support 16 people in the same session would be a MMORPG. CS would be an MMORPG, UT and so on, and they are not. Neither is GW.
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
No, because Warcraft 2 was an RTS, not an RPG.
Anyways, Warcraft 2 had a completely graphical social hub? I really don't know, nor honestly care.
I underlined the important parts of your post. Tons, meaning massive... Multiplayer... Online sessions tied together. Sounds like an MMO to me.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
You are wrong, it is not semantics. You can't be that sloppy with language. One word signals something completely different from the other.
You have to be disciplined when communicating, and don't get frustrated afterwards when you are being pointed out. Learn from it instead.
Im not even sure that that was a semantics issue on his part. I honestly believe that he doesn't know what instances are in detail.
Furthermore, a "zone" that is closed, is an instance. If a game has interconnected "zones" that require you to "load" into them such as eve or gw or several others, DDO, Final Fantasy XI. Each zone is an instance inside of that particular server/shard.
In the case of WoW, instances are what a dungeon has become to be known as, and multiple dungeons can be ran at the same time, each closed from the other.
You are taking a socially accepted definition for a dungeon and confusing it for what the actual use of an instance is.
Originally posted by Abrahmm Here you go: "Does it meet our requirements? 1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot fo them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game must be based entirely inside of a graphical world. 3D, 2D and 2.5D games are all welcome on our list, but unfortunately we are unable at this time to provide listing for text-based MUDs.
3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
4. The game must include some form of graphical common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction.
5. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
6. The game must contain some form of character advancement."
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
And you have absolutely no idea if that is true or not because that situation would never happen.
City instances are born and die all the time, the first city is not special - it can be left empty just as well as city #13811 - and then it will die.
I forgot to respond to the OP, yes I feel that Guild Wars is under rated. Just look at this thread, it has devolved into an inane argument about the definition of an mmo.
Furthermore, a "zone" that is closed, is an instance. If a game has interconnected "zones" that require you to "load" into them such as eve or gw or several others, DDO, Final Fantasy XI. Each zone is an instance inside of that particular server/shard. In the case of WoW, instances are what a dungeon has become to be known as, and multiple dungeons can be ran at the same time, each closed from the other. You are taking a socially accepted definition for a dungeon and confusing it for what the actual use of an instance is.
It's not worth it skydragonren. Never argue with a stupid person, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
instance (plural instances) 1. A happening or occurring; an occurrence; an occasion. This has happened in three instances. 2. A case occurring; a case offered as an exemplification or a precedent; an example; a token. It was the only instance in which a direct copy, even to matters of detail, appeared to have been made. 3. (obsolete) A piece of evidence; proof.
4. (computing) In object-oriented programming: a created object, one that has had memory allocated for local data storage; an instantiation of a class
An instance is nothing more than a closed off section of a program for memory reduction. Eve sectors of space are instances broken down into the same shard or server. It is broken down this way to reduce memory allocation and strain on a server. 0.0 - 1.0 sectors of space are all instances of the shard the entire populous eve play on. Just stop typing Ras please.
In MMORPGs, and object oriented programming, and instance is an replica of another INSTANCE with a set of variables that can change. In programming those are called instance variables, in MMORPGs that can be anything from the players to the mobs inside. However, in both cases, they are fundamentally the same. A zone in Eve is NOT like that, they are fundamentally different (security settings, what missions there are, what asteroid fields there are, what space stations and so on).
Also in MMORPGs an instance is often a closed of area which has restricted access. This is ALSO not the case for Eve zones.
Finally, MMORPGs instances are NOT persistant, i.e. they are created and destroyed many times, a sector in Eve is NEVER destroyed, nor created (except once), and is another reason why they are not instances.
instance (plural instances) 1. A happening or occurring; an occurrence; an occasion. This has happened in three instances. 2. A case occurring; a case offered as an exemplification or a precedent; an example; a token. It was the only instance in which a direct copy, even to matters of detail, appeared to have been made. 3. (obsolete) A piece of evidence; proof.
4. (computing) In object-oriented programming: a created object, one that has had memory allocated for local data storage; an instantiation of a class
An instance is nothing more than a closed off section of a program for memory reduction. Eve sectors of space are instances broken down into the same shard or server. It is broken down this way to reduce memory allocation and strain on a server. 0.0 - 1.0 sectors of space are all instances of the shard the entire populous eve play on. Just stop typing Ras please.
So now you are claiming that instances of classes in programming is the same as instances in games?
You do know that the same word can have different meaning in different contexts, right?
And no, the zones in EVE are *not* instances in gaming terms.
I forgot to respond to the OP, yes I feel that Guild Wars is under rated. Just look at this thread, it has devolved into an inane argument about the definition of an mmo.
Exactly, and I for one am tired of doing it.
Ras has been wrong in every post he has made, even trying to point out to others the definitions to things he doesn't know the answer to himself.
Trying to tell me I don't know what an Instance is. I do that shit for a living. I know the definition of Instance in the computing world and it isn't a WoW dungeon.
Sigh, just let him go on for 20 more pages of retarded bullshit all he wants.
He doesn't know what an MMO is, He doesn't even know the difference between Counterstrike an FPS and Guild Wars an RPG and then tries to tell someone they do not know what an instance is, when he himself doesn't know what an instance is.
I for one am just tired of looking at the special ed text he types.
But anyway, yes op guild wars is under-rated and a very good MMORPG!!!!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
No, because Warcraft 2 was an RTS, not an RPG.
Anyways, Warcraft 2 had a completely graphical social hub? I really don't know, nor honestly care.
I underlined the important parts of your post. Tons, meaning massive... Multiplayer... Online sessions tied together. Sounds like an MMO to me.
The discussion is not about the RPG part but rather about the MMO part. Warcraft 2 would then be a MMORTS, which it was not. And yes, BNet was a graphical hub, not as pretty as GWs, but still a graphical hub.
Also the sessions in GW are NOT tied together, they are run completely independant of each other and the only things that are persistant are your characters and their equipment. So they are persistant but NOT the world itself and hence that makes it fail at beeing an MMORPG.
I've loved guild wars since it came out, along with how many different iterations it had during beta on how to get skills ( Skill gems would have been a nice thing to add to the economy for trade).
But the instance only gameplay for all of the game is a detraction for me. I love the art, the armor styles, the game play, the skills. But everything being a seperate instance, and cities limiting the number of people since they are so tiny too. Just like Aion and AoC, limiting the number of people to a zone before creating a new one kinda sucks.
But we won't hear much about GW2 for a while after Aion, unless it tanks. Which seems unlikely since so many people are hyping it.
Comments
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
Millions of players into one VW? Rofl, gimme a fekking break.
GW is no more massive than CS.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
Stop name-calling and start arguing instead. Oh wait, that takes skill.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
Millions of players into one VW? Rofl, gimme a fekking break.
GW is no more massive than CS.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
Stop name-calling and start arguing instead. Oh wait, that takes skill.
It is also pretty obvious you can not read either.
As I said the fact that you even equate or compare GW to CS proves you do not know your ass from a hole in the ground. Are you even a gamer?
I think you ride the failboat to school.
I am looking at this trying to figure out where I referred to you as anything but a so called "gamer". Unless gamer is now somehow a negative term. I sure hope not.
Anyway, I said you do not know what you are talking about, but I did not call you a name.
Speaking of skill, reading is a skill. Try to learn that one first before telling me to learn one.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
With that definition the Blizzards BNET is an MMORPG to, as it puts millions of people in the same "virtual world".
However for me to become a virtual world you should, theoretically, be able to move freely in it and have the possibility to meet anyone on that server. That is not possible in GW as 99% of the people are "hidden" in their own semi-private instances. And each instance holds what, 16 people, at most?
Sorry but if that is an MMORPG then any multiplayer game that can support 16 people in the same session would be a MMORPG. CS would be an MMORPG, UT and so on, and they are not. Neither is GW.
My gaming blog
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
Oh, and FYI I do question WoW as well. It has been stretching the definitions, but it does make it IMO, because you can potentially run into all players in the open world.
WoW's endgame (raid instances/BGs) has nothing to do with MMO, however.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
Furthermore instances are often always semi-private. Meaning only a very small subset of players can enter it.
My gaming blog
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
And you have absolutely no idea if that is true or not because that situation would never happen.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
instance (plural instances)
1. A happening or occurring; an occurrence; an occasion.
This has happened in three instances.
2. A case occurring; a case offered as an exemplification or a precedent; an example; a token.
It was the only instance in which a direct copy, even to matters of detail, appeared to have been made.
3. (obsolete) A piece of evidence; proof.
4. (computing) In object-oriented programming: a created object, one that has had memory allocated for local data storage; an instantiation of a class
An instance is nothing more than a closed off section of a program for memory reduction.
Eve sectors of space are instances broken down into the same shard or server. It is broken down this way to reduce memory allocation and strain on a server.
0.0 - 1.0 sectors of space are all instances of the shard the entire populous eve play on.
Just stop typing Ras please.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
My gaming blog
Guild Wars is an MMO. The only difference is that ever zone is like a dungeon in WoW... (only imo much more interactive and interesting) so that's that.
I think Guild Wars is under-rated but I'm not going to try to convince people otherwise. Especially this late in its life.
Yeah, it fits in there perfectly.
The only argument against it being an MMO is because of the instances and their limits on how many people can play in them. While that limit isn't "Massive", Guild Wars puts all of the millions of players playing it into one virtual world, making it more massive than almost every other MMO out now. So, it is indeed massive, just not in the normal sense.
With that definition the Blizzards BNET is an MMORPG to, as it puts millions of people in the same "virtual world".
However for me to become a virtual world you should, theoretically, be able to move freely in it and have the possibility to meet anyone on that server. That is not possible in GW as 99% of the people are "hidden" in their own semi-private instances. And each instance holds what, 16 people, at most?
Sorry but if that is an MMORPG then any multiplayer game that can support 16 people in the same session would be a MMORPG. CS would be an MMORPG, UT and so on, and they are not. Neither is GW.
Exactly.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
No, because Warcraft 2 was an RTS, not an RPG.
Anyways, Warcraft 2 had a completely graphical social hub? I really don't know, nor honestly care.
I underlined the important parts of your post. Tons, meaning massive... Multiplayer... Online sessions tied together. Sounds like an MMO to me.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
Only 2 other games I know of that does this is EvE, and Darkfall. Meaning 1 server or shard for thier entire game. Guess they aren't MMO's either.
By Ras's definition, EvE is NOT an MMO. Because eve is broken down into space sectors, meaning instances. Also the missions are instanced in a way. You have to jump through gates to reach the other sectors of space.
EvE isn't an MMO either.
Ok, now you just showed your incompetence.
You don't even know what an instance is? An instance is a COPY of another space. Instances will be identical and exist side-by-side.
The areas in EVE are UNIQUE and thus not instances.
I can't waste my time teaching people the absolute basics.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
You are wrong, it is not semantics. You can't be that sloppy with language. One word signals something completely different from the other.
You have to be disciplined when communicating, and don't get frustrated afterwards when you are being pointed out. Learn from it instead.
Im not even sure that that was a semantics issue on his part. I honestly believe that he doesn't know what instances are in detail.
Furthermore, a "zone" that is closed, is an instance. If a game has interconnected "zones" that require you to "load" into them such as eve or gw or several others, DDO, Final Fantasy XI. Each zone is an instance inside of that particular server/shard.
In the case of WoW, instances are what a dungeon has become to be known as, and multiple dungeons can be ran at the same time, each closed from the other.
You are taking a socially accepted definition for a dungeon and confusing it for what the actual use of an instance is.
"3. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology."
There you have it. Where can GW have 500 simultaneous users? It can't.
Apart from that, that is shitty classifications overall, and doesn't go to the root of what makes an MMO. Look at 6 for instance, what the hell has character advancement got to do with MMO? Or RPG for that matter? What if you chose to make a game where it is the player's personal skill that should advance, and not the character's?
Shitty classification has resulted in everything getting lumped onto this site.
Well, by "Server" in that definition, they mean shard, or instance of the game world(because all games use server clusters and don't put all of their players on one piece of hardware). With that clarified, Guild Wars actually puts 4million+ players in their shard, because they have one shard for every single player in the game. Massive, I know. Way more than 500.
I have never seen a screenshot of GW with many players, not one. What is the limit of each instance of GW cities?
Your socalled "4 million+" (any higher? Anyone?) isn't by any means put in the same world. Maybe on 400.000 instances of the GW city (to even imagine GW to have 4+ million simultaneous players... they would probably beat WoW in that case, lol).
CS has just as many instances of any given map, and in the CS lobby you can talk to anyone, just like you can in the GW 3D lobby (the city).
The only persistance that GW has, is the character. That makes it indistinguishable from BF2 and other modern shooters with character development. You have no impact on the world at all. When the instance you were in, dies, there is no sign at all that you have ever been there.
Wow... Terrible. CS Lobby? lol. You're either very special or a very bad troll.
Oh, the first instance of any city is persistent as it will always be there. Very few MMOs let you impact the world at all these days(Go impact the world in WoW for me and let me know how it goes. What? You couldn't? OH it must not be an MMO either)
No, the first city is not persistent. If a second instance of the city is made, and everyone leaves the first city, the first city will die.
And you have absolutely no idea if that is true or not because that situation would never happen.
City instances are born and die all the time, the first city is not special - it can be left empty just as well as city #13811 - and then it will die.
I forgot to respond to the OP, yes I feel that Guild Wars is under rated. Just look at this thread, it has devolved into an inane argument about the definition of an mmo.
It's not worth it skydragonren. Never argue with a stupid person, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
In MMORPGs, and object oriented programming, and instance is an replica of another INSTANCE with a set of variables that can change. In programming those are called instance variables, in MMORPGs that can be anything from the players to the mobs inside. However, in both cases, they are fundamentally the same. A zone in Eve is NOT like that, they are fundamentally different (security settings, what missions there are, what asteroid fields there are, what space stations and so on).
Also in MMORPGs an instance is often a closed of area which has restricted access. This is ALSO not the case for Eve zones.
Finally, MMORPGs instances are NOT persistant, i.e. they are created and destroyed many times, a sector in Eve is NEVER destroyed, nor created (except once), and is another reason why they are not instances.
My gaming blog
Wow, a lot has transpired in this thread since I stepped out of my office for 15 minutes to take a crap.
So now you are claiming that instances of classes in programming is the same as instances in games?
You do know that the same word can have different meaning in different contexts, right?
And no, the zones in EVE are *not* instances in gaming terms.
Edit: furthermore read Yamota's post above.
Exactly, and I for one am tired of doing it.
Ras has been wrong in every post he has made, even trying to point out to others the definitions to things he doesn't know the answer to himself.
Trying to tell me I don't know what an Instance is. I do that shit for a living. I know the definition of Instance in the computing world and it isn't a WoW dungeon.
Sigh, just let him go on for 20 more pages of retarded bullshit all he wants.
He doesn't know what an MMO is, He doesn't even know the difference between Counterstrike an FPS and Guild Wars an RPG and then tries to tell someone they do not know what an instance is, when he himself doesn't know what an instance is.
I for one am just tired of looking at the special ed text he types.
But anyway, yes op guild wars is under-rated and a very good MMORPG!!!!
Later guys, time for me to head home from work.
OMG SEMANTICS!
He meant zones. Who cares? WoW has instances too. Not an MMO? AoC is all instanced, must not be an MMO either. If it has instances it isn't an MMO everyone! It's been officially decided by the ruler of what things shall be, Rasputin. All hail.
It's not semantics, it is common sense. By your definition any game that has a public social hub for connecting people to start multiplayer sessions would be MMORPGs, because that is all GW is. There is no instanced world but rather tons of multiplayer sessions tied together by social hubs.
Warcraft 2 had that with BNET. So is that an MMORPG?
No, because Warcraft 2 was an RTS, not an RPG.
Anyways, Warcraft 2 had a completely graphical social hub? I really don't know, nor honestly care.
I underlined the important parts of your post. Tons, meaning massive... Multiplayer... Online sessions tied together. Sounds like an MMO to me.
The discussion is not about the RPG part but rather about the MMO part. Warcraft 2 would then be a MMORTS, which it was not. And yes, BNet was a graphical hub, not as pretty as GWs, but still a graphical hub.
Also the sessions in GW are NOT tied together, they are run completely independant of each other and the only things that are persistant are your characters and their equipment. So they are persistant but NOT the world itself and hence that makes it fail at beeing an MMORPG.
My gaming blog
I've loved guild wars since it came out, along with how many different iterations it had during beta on how to get skills ( Skill gems would have been a nice thing to add to the economy for trade).
But the instance only gameplay for all of the game is a detraction for me. I love the art, the armor styles, the game play, the skills. But everything being a seperate instance, and cities limiting the number of people since they are so tiny too. Just like Aion and AoC, limiting the number of people to a zone before creating a new one kinda sucks.
But we won't hear much about GW2 for a while after Aion, unless it tanks. Which seems unlikely since so many people are hyping it.