Originally posted by Presbytier Originally posted by Shadewalker
Originally posted by Presbytier
This is just a argument over semantics. Many people who play Guild Wars think it is a MMORPG.
Many people used to think that the Earth was flat - their belief didn't make it so. It isn't really an argument over semantics, there is a general acceptance that there are several MMO's that are not MMORPG's in the generally accepted sense - they include CoH, D&D and GW. They're covered on the MMORPG fansites because they're suited to them, but again that doesn't make them something that they are not. However, there's nothing to be gained by arguing the point especially given that the sole point of putting the commonly held view that it is not a MMORPG forward was by way of explanation as to why GW was not included in the list of best played MMORPG's. Whether you agree with the view or not is irrelevant to the validity of the explanation which stands if only on the developer's own opinion as already stated. What does it not have that prevents it from being a MMORPG. By the way it is not a general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. Since when was CoH and D&D not considered a MMORPG. Please explain to me what feature these games are lacking that prevents them from being a MMORPG.
This is not an argument over semantics. I personally think GW fits the definition of MMORPG just fine, but that is not the point. You expressly state the developers had never said that it was not called a MMORPG. That is absolutely and provably untrue. Semantics would be if we were just arguing over the difference between MMORPG and CORPG. I am not arguing that. I am saying you said something we can all prove is false. When you say something provably false to support your argument, it undermines everything you say.
I do not know about CoH (the IP never appealed to me in the slightest), but DDO is probably being described as not being a MMORPG because it follows a similar method to GW. Everyone hangs out in a city and goes into instances to do the killing. A great many people (probably a majority) agree that to really be a "true" MMO (whatever that means), the game world must be, for the most part, not instanced, so players can interact with one another in the adventure areas of the game in unscripted ways (read: while not already in a party). I like the idea of being able to come upon someone while trekking through a dangerous place, and help them, or kill them, or leave them to their fate, as the mood strikes me.
You can argue that it is not the general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. There is really no way to measure that, so we can call that opinion. It would be nice if you did not state your opinions as fact, but you can have them. What you cannot do is say the people behind a game have not done something they have done, or vice versa. That, essentially, is a lie.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
CoH can be played entirely without instances, if you wanted to. You could level by fighting open world mobs, without going into instanced missions. GW cannot do that. I think that is the main difference.
This is just a argument over semantics. Many people who play Guild Wars think it is a MMORPG.
Many people used to think that the Earth was flat - their belief didn't make it so.
It isn't really an argument over semantics, there is a general acceptance that there are several MMO's that are not MMORPG's in the generally accepted sense - they include CoH, D&D and GW. They're covered on the MMORPG fansites because they're suited to them, but again that doesn't make them something that they are not.
However, there's nothing to be gained by arguing the point especially given that the sole point of putting the commonly held view that it is not a MMORPG forward was by way of explanation as to why GW was not included in the list of best played MMORPG's. Whether you agree with the view or not is irrelevant to the validity of the explanation which stands if only on the developer's own opinion as already stated.
What does it not have that prevents it from being a MMORPG. By the way it is not a general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. Since when was CoH and D&D not considered a MMORPG. Please explain to me what feature these games are lacking that prevents them from being a MMORPG.
This is not an argument over semantics. I personally think GW fits the definition of MMORPG just fine, but that is not the point. You expressly state the developers had never said that it was not called a MMORPG. That is absolutely and provably untrue. Semantics would be if we were just arguing over the difference between MMORPG and CORPG. I am not arguing that. I am saying you said something we can all prove is false. When you say something provably false to support your argument, it undermines everything you say.
I do not know about CoH (the IP never appealed to me in the slightest), but DDO is probably being described as not being a MMORPG because it follows a similar method to GW. Everyone hangs out in a city and goes into instances to do the killing. A great many people (probably a majority) agree that to really be a "true" MMO (whatever that means), the game world must be, for the most part, not instanced, so players can interact with one another in the adventure areas of the game in unscripted ways (read: while not already in a party). I like the idea of being able to come upon someone while trekking through a dangerous place, and help them, or kill them, or leave them to their fate, as the mood strikes me.
You can argue that it is not the general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. There is really no way to measure that, so we can call that opinion. It would be nice if you did not state your opinions as fact, but you can have them. What you cannot do is say the people behind a game have not done something they have done, or vice versa. That, essentially, is a lie.
Ah, so now we are finally getting to the "semantics" part.
What IS or IS NOT an MMORPG.
Well what "most" people consider to be a "true" mmorpg doesn't really amount to anything.
I already gave you the textbook definition of an MMORPG. Guess I will do it again.
Short for massively multiplayer online role-playing game it is a type of game genre. MMORPGs are online role-playing multiplayer games which allow thousands of gamers to play in the game's evolving virtual world at the same time via the Internet.
(Massively Multiuser Online Role Playing Game) A role playing game on the computer played by many people. An MMORPG differs from a regular computer role playing game because its environment is perpetual. People log in, join the game, take on their role and leave whenever they wish, but the game continues. See CRPG, MMOG and Second Life.
Definition: MMORPG stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It is a kind of role playing game which is played in an online virtual world by a huge number of players at once.
Ok that is enough definitions because every website says the exact same things just words reaaranged.
Ok so if you look at the definition for a moment. . It is a kind of role playing game which is played in an online virtual world by a huge number of players at once. I would say that 5 millions units sold easily fits into the category of "huge number of players". It definitely covers, "large amount of players" and trumps "thousands of players" by Millions.
So we have just covered the Massive in Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
is a mode of play for computer games and video games where two or more gamers can play in the same game at the same time, co-operatively as a clan (or team) or head-to-head competitively (often referred to as deathmatch) . Multiplayer mode may be a split screen
where the gamers play at the same time on one system, or where gamers play on separate systems connected to a LAN or Internet game server.
Guild wars is played by up to 8 players at one time in any given instance or dungeon in the game. Hundreds-Thousands could interact inside of a hub city, but 8 can play as a team in most aspects of the game with a min of 4 players in the beginning. So 8 players can play at the same time. It is even more than that in the BG's with up to 32 players battling it out. Guild Wars also has guilds/clan and guild/clan battles. It also has head to head competitive modes of play with 4v4 or 8v8 arenas.
I would say that Guild Wars easily fits into the "multiplayer category", so now we have the M and the M covered.
The O is easiest of all, Guild Wars can only be played online, it offers no offline modes what-so-ever so we have the M M and O covered.
Short for role-playing game, it is a game genre where one or more players adopt a role and act it out in a virtual reality. Usually in an RPG game, you will set out on an adventure or quest, and multiplayer RPG games allows gamers to complete these quests with other gamers as allies over the Internet or as a LAN game.
Guild Wars does exactly what this definition implies right down to the letter. If allows players to adopt a role and act it out in a VR. It sends you on a series of quest and story arcs (regardless of how linear) with mulitple players or allies (heroes) over the internet or as a LAN in this case Internet only.
So we have now pegged GW into the RPG category.
So Guild Wars has the M M O and RPG all covered. I have just proven that without a shadow of a doubt, GW is an MMORPG.
Sigh now someone will come on and discredit all this work with "Oh yeah! Well ANET says they consider their game an CORPG!!! pwned".
As I said, anet caused all of this, despite the fact that Guild Wars has each and every area of the definition of MMORPG in the bag.
Well from the list I'd have to go with Asheron's Call. I played for the first couple years and had great experiences in a pretty good sized guild on Thistledown.
I'm not surprised APB is so low. It's basically just a re-hash of another game that looked good in perspective, but sucked at the end of the day (CrimeCraft anybody?).
Dubhlaith explains my point on DDO very well. The game is entirely instanced, even the central hubs are mirrored with countless copies. There's no sense of being a part of anything other than the group you're in, there's absolutely no sense of community and when you're running around the hubs you'll only see a few of the players that are in that area because of the mirroring. The few outdoor areas that can be freely entered are extremely basic, not remotely comparable to the traditional MMORPG's at all. You don't get normal adventuring experience as with traditional MMORPG's, the game being solely about completing a quest in a private instance which is the only way in which you can advance. I like the game enormously, but I don't consider it a MMORPG in the accepted sense of the term.
The hubs in GW are even worse of course, the immature chat that takes place there drives me out into an instance again quicker than ArenaNet can say "CORPG". To be fair I haven't played it for a couple of years but I doubt it's changed that much. Again, the game is entirely instanced with multiple mirror copies of the hubs.
I included CoH in my group of games that weren't MMORPG's in the traditionally accepted sense because when I played it at launch it was extremely shallow. It had extensive character customisation but lacked many of the standard MMORPG features such as loot (apart from skill modifiers although the skills themselves were very simplistic, perhaps now they have the equivalent of talent trees and deeds etc), inventory, housing, crafting (I think some crafting may have been added since), and the missions were largely identical warehouses etc. No doubt the game has come on since then although whenever I have tried it since I have got bored witless very quickly because there was no real depth or variety to it. If it's changed enough now to be compared equally to the traditional MMORPG's then I'm looking for another decent traditional MMORPG so sell it to me!
I haven't been trying to offend those whose favourite game has been labelled a non-MMORPG, rather to appease them by pointing out that perhaps the reason their favourite game isn't in a list of top 10 MMORPG's is because it doesn't really fit completely into that category !
Neonaka, 8 people playing together for most aspects of a game certainly enables you to call it "multiplayer", but it doesn't even begin to cover the "massively" part of a MMORPG, nor does the fact that lots of other people are playing in other instances or mirrored hubs.
Neonaka, 8 people playing together for most aspects of a game certainly enables you to call it "multiplayer", but it doesn't even begin to cover the "massively" part of a MMORPG, nor does the fact that lots of other people are playing in other instances or mirrored hubs.
You are trying to detract from the actual meaning of Massive.
Massive simple means a lot. Millions of players play GW at the same time, regardless if you can cram all 1 million into 1 instance of Lion's Arch or not, it does not detract from the fact the game is actually holding all of these players at the same time.
If I owned a building capable of holding 1 million people, and it had no rooms, and I put all 1 million in the building that building is holding 1 million people.
If I owned a building capable of holding 1 million people but I build 4 rooms inside the building. I then placed 250 thousand people in each room of that building, how many people are in that building. 1 million exactly the same as the building without rooms.
Massive is massive you can try to twist it all you want, but GW is a Massive Game, its a Multiplayer game, It is Online, and it is an RPG. Regardless of how you spin it.
EDIT - I am trying to remember back in all my 25 years of gaming, when someone decided that "Massively" in MMORPG stood for, Massive amounts of people BUT they all have to be able to see one another at the same time, or they have to be in a single shard.
By this definition NO MMO is a true MMO then. EVERY MMO save for EVE that I can think of off the top of my head is zoned and instanced. Even the holy grail wow, is broken down into zones and instances. Azeroth isn't connected to Outland and neither of them are connect to Northrend. You must take a ship or portal to each of them which prompts a loading screen. So in reality, wow is nothing more than a game, divided into hundreds of servers, and inside each server it is broken down into 3 hub zones, and inside these 3 hubs zones about a hundred smaller instances.
Do you see where I am going with this. GW is no different from WoW, it just decided to make its Zones smaller, and restrict the amount of players you could walk around the world with. Which in turn reduces lag, and stopped noobs for begging for your money while you quest and level.
Neonaka, 8 people playing together for most aspects of a game certainly enables you to call it "multiplayer", but it doesn't even begin to cover the "massively" part of a MMORPG, nor does the fact that lots of other people are playing in other instances or mirrored hubs.
You are trying to detract from the actual meaning of Massive.
Massive simple means a lot. Millions of players play GW at the same time, regardless if you can cram all 1 million into 1 instance of Lion's Arch or not, it does not detract from the fact the game is actually holding all of these players at the same time.
Actually you're the one detracting from the meaning of "massively" that you gave earlier. You quoted a definition based on games "in which a very large number of players interact with one another ". Yet in GW only 8 people can actually interract with each other for most aspects of the game. It is a wholly instanced and mirrored game, not one in which a very large number of players can interact with one another.
Neonaka, 8 people playing together for most aspects of a game certainly enables you to call it "multiplayer", but it doesn't even begin to cover the "massively" part of a MMORPG, nor does the fact that lots of other people are playing in other instances or mirrored hubs.
You are trying to detract from the actual meaning of Massive.
Massive simple means a lot. Millions of players play GW at the same time, regardless if you can cram all 1 million into 1 instance of Lion's Arch or not, it does not detract from the fact the game is actually holding all of these players at the same time.
Actually you're the one detracting from the meaning of "massively" that you gave earlier. You quoted a definition based on games "in which a very large number of players interact with one another ". Yet in GW only 8 people can actually interract with each other for most aspects of the game. It is a wholly instanced and mirrored game, not one in which a very large number of players can interact with one another.
No hundreds of players at a time can interact in GW spanning hundreds of cities spanning 3 contintent in GW. Which is pretty damn Massively if I do say so myself.
EDIT - Did you even play GW, because it seems to me you have not. I know everytime I log into GW and go to LA, KC or Kamadan I see hundreds of players running all over the place. Also every little minor town hub I walk into has 30-50 players running around so If you see thousands of players all over the world interacting together, socializing and talking. That would seem massively to me.
Yes, I've played GW. It's a collection of mainly 8 man instances joined by what has rightly been described earlier as 3D chatrooms.
However, we each have our different view of what kind of game it is, I share the view of the game's developers and you do not. That's your prerogative, I have no issue with that.
Neonaka, you seem to feel strongly about this, but you do not seem to have a solid point of view. You seem to say one thing, and then another. Also, webopedia is not really a university level source, if you follow me. I think for a core genre concept, the general consensus is far, far more important than the definition on some random websites. A genre is not a thing that can be defined in such a way. (see below)
However, in any case, the main point of my posts were to rebut the person that claimed Anet never said GW was not a MMORPG, when in fact they did. That was the only thing I was really trying to get across. I even said that I myself consider GW to fit within the definition of MMORPG quite well, and while I did not fully read your massive posts, what you are saying seems relatively accurate.
In any case, if we are indeed going to be arguing semantics, a game in which a large number of people can interact is a wildly subjective idea. For example, as I stated, I think the majority of online gamers do not consider GW a MMORPG because they do not consider talking to each other and passing by one another in town "interacting," at least not on the same level as passing by one another in an adventure zone in which something besides words might be exchanged. Shadewalker's thoughts are those of most people with whom I have discussed this subject.
I really love GW, and I still go back to it from time to time. But the inability to wander around on my own (by which I mean without a party, even if they are all AI), or being able to come upon someone in the world while I am doing something, are the two most major drawbacks, and they are both things Anet realised were problems, and they are changing them.
So while I never said, and I would not say, that GW does not fit my own definition of what makes a MMORPG, I think many if not most people would say that, up to any including the people that designed the game, would say that it is not.
So your opinion, and any hugely subjective definition you can pull up and tell me what you have decided it means, really ammounts to nothing. The people that made the game say that it is not a MMORPG. Full stop. You cannot argue with those people. That would be like arguing with a writer over what genre their book is. The author gets to say. (Well, publisher really, but that really is a moot point.)
So basically, you have just argued that it fits your definition of MMORPG, but not the definition of the game designers themselves. I guess just as Americans calling some random game in which they almost never kick the ball "football" does not make it football, so does calling GW a MMORPG not make it so.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
It isn't really an argument over semantics, there is a general acceptance that there are several MMO's that are not MMORPG's in the generally accepted sense - they include CoH, D&D and GW. They're covered on the MMORPG fansites because they're suited to them, but again that doesn't make them something that they are not.
However, there's nothing to be gained by arguing the point especially given that the sole point of putting the commonly held view that it is not a MMORPG forward was by way of explanation as to why GW was not included in the list of best played MMORPG's. Whether you agree with the view or not is irrelevant to the validity of the explanation which stands if only on the developer's own opinion as already stated.
What does it not have that prevents it from being a MMORPG. By the way it is not a general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. Since when was CoH and D&D not considered a MMORPG. Please explain to me what feature these games are lacking that prevents them from being a MMORPG.
This is not an argument over semantics. I personally think GW fits the definition of MMORPG just fine, but that is not the point. You expressly state the developers had never said that it was not called a MMORPG. That is absolutely and provably untrue. Semantics would be if we were just arguing over the difference between MMORPG and CORPG. I am not arguing that. I am saying you said something we can all prove is false. When you say something provably false to support your argument, it undermines everything you say.
I do not know about CoH (the IP never appealed to me in the slightest), but DDO is probably being described as not being a MMORPG because it follows a similar method to GW. Everyone hangs out in a city and goes into instances to do the killing. A great many people (probably a majority) agree that to really be a "true" MMO (whatever that means), the game world must be, for the most part, not instanced, so players can interact with one another in the adventure areas of the game in unscripted ways (read: while not already in a party). I like the idea of being able to come upon someone while trekking through a dangerous place, and help them, or kill them, or leave them to their fate, as the mood strikes me.
You can argue that it is not the general consensus that GW is not a MMORPG. There is really no way to measure that, so we can call that opinion. It would be nice if you did not state your opinions as fact, but you can have them. What you cannot do is say the people behind a game have not done something they have done, or vice versa. That, essentially, is a lie.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
CoH can be played entirely without instances, if you wanted to. You could level by fighting open world mobs, without going into instanced missions. GW cannot do that. I think that is the main difference.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Ah, so now we are finally getting to the "semantics" part.
What IS or IS NOT an MMORPG.
Well what "most" people consider to be a "true" mmorpg doesn't really amount to anything.
I already gave you the textbook definition of an MMORPG. Guess I will do it again.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MMORPG.html
Short for massively multiplayer online role-playing game it is a type of game genre. MMORPGs are online role-playing multiplayer games which allow thousands of gamers to play in the game's evolving virtual world at the same time via the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=MMORPG&i=56863,00.asp
(Massively Multiuser Online Role Playing Game) A role playing game on the computer played by many people. An MMORPG differs from a regular computer role playing game because its environment is perpetual. People log in, join the game, take on their role and leave whenever they wish, but the game continues. See CRPG, MMOG and Second Life.
http://psp.about.com/od/pspglossary/g/mmorpgdef.htm
Definition: MMORPG stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It is a kind of role playing game which is played in an online virtual world by a huge number of players at once.
Ok that is enough definitions because every website says the exact same things just words reaaranged.
Let us look at GW for a moment.
This is topic posted on wired.com in 2008.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/02/guild-wars-brea/
Guild Wars Hits 5 Million Units Sold
Ok so if you look at the definition for a moment. . It is a kind of role playing game which is played in an online virtual world by a huge number of players at once. I would say that 5 millions units sold easily fits into the category of "huge number of players". It definitely covers, "large amount of players" and trumps "thousands of players" by Millions.
So we have just covered the Massive in Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game.
Let us look at the Multiplayer aspect.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/multiplayer.html
Multiplayer
is a mode of play for computer games and video games where two or more gamers can play in the same game at the same time, co-operatively as a clan (or team) or head-to-head competitively (often referred to as deathmatch) . Multiplayer mode may be a split screen
where the gamers play at the same time on one system, or where gamers play on separate systems connected to a LAN or Internet game server.
Guild wars is played by up to 8 players at one time in any given instance or dungeon in the game. Hundreds-Thousands could interact inside of a hub city, but 8 can play as a team in most aspects of the game with a min of 4 players in the beginning. So 8 players can play at the same time. It is even more than that in the BG's with up to 32 players battling it out. Guild Wars also has guilds/clan and guild/clan battles. It also has head to head competitive modes of play with 4v4 or 8v8 arenas.
I would say that Guild Wars easily fits into the "multiplayer category", so now we have the M and the M covered.
The O is easiest of all, Guild Wars can only be played online, it offers no offline modes what-so-ever so we have the M M and O covered.
Next we will cover the RPG.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/R/RPG.html
Short for role-playing game, it is a game genre where one or more players adopt a role and act it out in a virtual reality. Usually in an RPG game, you will set out on an adventure or quest, and multiplayer RPG games allows gamers to complete these quests with other gamers as allies over the Internet or as a LAN game.
Guild Wars does exactly what this definition implies right down to the letter. If allows players to adopt a role and act it out in a VR. It sends you on a series of quest and story arcs (regardless of how linear) with mulitple players or allies (heroes) over the internet or as a LAN in this case Internet only.
So we have now pegged GW into the RPG category.
So Guild Wars has the M M O and RPG all covered. I have just proven that without a shadow of a doubt, GW is an MMORPG.
Sigh now someone will come on and discredit all this work with "Oh yeah! Well ANET says they consider their game an CORPG!!! pwned".
As I said, anet caused all of this, despite the fact that Guild Wars has each and every area of the definition of MMORPG in the bag.
That is semantics for you....
Well from the list I'd have to go with Asheron's Call. I played for the first couple years and had great experiences in a pretty good sized guild on Thistledown.
I'm not surprised APB is so low. It's basically just a re-hash of another game that looked good in perspective, but sucked at the end of the day (CrimeCraft anybody?).
UO.
Dubhlaith explains my point on DDO very well. The game is entirely instanced, even the central hubs are mirrored with countless copies. There's no sense of being a part of anything other than the group you're in, there's absolutely no sense of community and when you're running around the hubs you'll only see a few of the players that are in that area because of the mirroring. The few outdoor areas that can be freely entered are extremely basic, not remotely comparable to the traditional MMORPG's at all. You don't get normal adventuring experience as with traditional MMORPG's, the game being solely about completing a quest in a private instance which is the only way in which you can advance. I like the game enormously, but I don't consider it a MMORPG in the accepted sense of the term.
The hubs in GW are even worse of course, the immature chat that takes place there drives me out into an instance again quicker than ArenaNet can say "CORPG". To be fair I haven't played it for a couple of years but I doubt it's changed that much. Again, the game is entirely instanced with multiple mirror copies of the hubs.
I included CoH in my group of games that weren't MMORPG's in the traditionally accepted sense because when I played it at launch it was extremely shallow. It had extensive character customisation but lacked many of the standard MMORPG features such as loot (apart from skill modifiers although the skills themselves were very simplistic, perhaps now they have the equivalent of talent trees and deeds etc), inventory, housing, crafting (I think some crafting may have been added since), and the missions were largely identical warehouses etc. No doubt the game has come on since then although whenever I have tried it since I have got bored witless very quickly because there was no real depth or variety to it. If it's changed enough now to be compared equally to the traditional MMORPG's then I'm looking for another decent traditional MMORPG so sell it to me!
I haven't been trying to offend those whose favourite game has been labelled a non-MMORPG, rather to appease them by pointing out that perhaps the reason their favourite game isn't in a list of top 10 MMORPG's is because it doesn't really fit completely into that category
!
QFT, all these games are fail.
Neonaka, 8 people playing together for most aspects of a game certainly enables you to call it "multiplayer", but it doesn't even begin to cover the "massively" part of a MMORPG, nor does the fact that lots of other people are playing in other instances or mirrored hubs.
You are trying to detract from the actual meaning of Massive.
Massive simple means a lot. Millions of players play GW at the same time, regardless if you can cram all 1 million into 1 instance of Lion's Arch or not, it does not detract from the fact the game is actually holding all of these players at the same time.
If I owned a building capable of holding 1 million people, and it had no rooms, and I put all 1 million in the building that building is holding 1 million people.
If I owned a building capable of holding 1 million people but I build 4 rooms inside the building. I then placed 250 thousand people in each room of that building, how many people are in that building. 1 million exactly the same as the building without rooms.
Massive is massive you can try to twist it all you want, but GW is a Massive Game, its a Multiplayer game, It is Online, and it is an RPG. Regardless of how you spin it.
EDIT - I am trying to remember back in all my 25 years of gaming, when someone decided that "Massively" in MMORPG stood for, Massive amounts of people BUT they all have to be able to see one another at the same time, or they have to be in a single shard.
By this definition NO MMO is a true MMO then. EVERY MMO save for EVE that I can think of off the top of my head is zoned and instanced. Even the holy grail wow, is broken down into zones and instances. Azeroth isn't connected to Outland and neither of them are connect to Northrend. You must take a ship or portal to each of them which prompts a loading screen. So in reality, wow is nothing more than a game, divided into hundreds of servers, and inside each server it is broken down into 3 hub zones, and inside these 3 hubs zones about a hundred smaller instances.
Do you see where I am going with this. GW is no different from WoW, it just decided to make its Zones smaller, and restrict the amount of players you could walk around the world with. Which in turn reduces lag, and stopped noobs for begging for your money while you quest and level.
Actually you're the one detracting from the meaning of "massively" that you gave earlier. You quoted a definition based on games "in which a very large number of players interact with one another ". Yet in GW only 8 people can actually interract with each other for most aspects of the game. It is a wholly instanced and mirrored game, not one in which a very large number of players can interact with one another.
No hundreds of players at a time can interact in GW spanning hundreds of cities spanning 3 contintent in GW. Which is pretty damn Massively if I do say so myself.
EDIT - Did you even play GW, because it seems to me you have not. I know everytime I log into GW and go to LA, KC or Kamadan I see hundreds of players running all over the place. Also every little minor town hub I walk into has 30-50 players running around so If you see thousands of players all over the world interacting together, socializing and talking. That would seem massively to me.
Yes, I've played GW. It's a collection of mainly 8 man instances joined by what has rightly been described earlier as 3D chatrooms.
However, we each have our different view of what kind of game it is, I share the view of the game's developers and you do not. That's your prerogative, I have no issue with that.
Neonaka, you seem to feel strongly about this, but you do not seem to have a solid point of view. You seem to say one thing, and then another. Also, webopedia is not really a university level source, if you follow me. I think for a core genre concept, the general consensus is far, far more important than the definition on some random websites. A genre is not a thing that can be defined in such a way. (see below)
However, in any case, the main point of my posts were to rebut the person that claimed Anet never said GW was not a MMORPG, when in fact they did. That was the only thing I was really trying to get across. I even said that I myself consider GW to fit within the definition of MMORPG quite well, and while I did not fully read your massive posts, what you are saying seems relatively accurate.
In any case, if we are indeed going to be arguing semantics, a game in which a large number of people can interact is a wildly subjective idea. For example, as I stated, I think the majority of online gamers do not consider GW a MMORPG because they do not consider talking to each other and passing by one another in town "interacting," at least not on the same level as passing by one another in an adventure zone in which something besides words might be exchanged. Shadewalker's thoughts are those of most people with whom I have discussed this subject.
I really love GW, and I still go back to it from time to time. But the inability to wander around on my own (by which I mean without a party, even if they are all AI), or being able to come upon someone in the world while I am doing something, are the two most major drawbacks, and they are both things Anet realised were problems, and they are changing them.
So while I never said, and I would not say, that GW does not fit my own definition of what makes a MMORPG, I think many if not most people would say that, up to any including the people that designed the game, would say that it is not.
So your opinion, and any hugely subjective definition you can pull up and tell me what you have decided it means, really ammounts to nothing. The people that made the game say that it is not a MMORPG. Full stop. You cannot argue with those people. That would be like arguing with a writer over what genre their book is. The author gets to say. (Well, publisher really, but that really is a moot point.)
So basically, you have just argued that it fits your definition of MMORPG, but not the definition of the game designers themselves. I guess just as Americans calling some random game in which they almost never kick the ball "football" does not make it football, so does calling GW a MMORPG not make it so.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?