GW is a: ???

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

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

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

How about MIRPG

Mutiplayer
Instanced
Role
Playing
Game

Any ideas? Or am I just retarded?

(drools)
(TATER TOTS!)

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

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

I stick by my MIRPG!

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

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

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

Competitive Online RPG.

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

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

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

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

MMCOAAE

Time Sink

TS

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

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

Looking at its box...

*Free online play*

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

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

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

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

That's what GW is all about.

It's an action/online RPG.

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

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

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

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

Reverse reverse psychology eh?

Obviously GW is a TEAMBASED ONLINE RPG, a TORPG.

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

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

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

Dreamcast much?

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

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

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

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