Talk:List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

How to organize?

How are we gonna organize this? ITs rather confusing as it exists right now. Should we use a table template similar to something in like List of Gradius titles? I think we should have some kind of brief classification information. opssible

I reccomend two initial hiearchies: free, and commercial. each of which break down into sub genres. IMO whether the graphics are sprite based or 3d doesnt have much impact. I think the lists should be split by genre. Next to games that are no longer around (inactive) we should put next ot it "(Inactive as of XX/XX/XX)"

Do we want to get as detailed as the next section talks about (expanding the list ...)? If its possible id say do so, but I want to intially focus on what is absolutely necessary for this page to become usable.

Just some ideas. --Larsinio 20:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the way it is now, its easy for one game to fit into multiple categories. The categories need to complement each other and all be of the same type. --Naha|^(talk) 04:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of MMORPGs would fall under the "Fantasy" genre, then there would be Sci-Fi and possibly Cyberpunk or something. There really are very few MMORPG genres. I think a simple alphabetized list would be best since confusion could, and would arise over whether a specific game is one genre or another. --Kevin 05:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Try organizing it by genre and tne puting them from most popular to least popular and then putting an asterisk next to games that can be played for free. --Alythria

I have organized the List of free MMORPGs in much the same way as was planned here. I could reorganize this list, along with merge the free list, to create one master list of all MMORPGs using categories such as 2D, 3D, Free to Play, Pay to Play, Free Trial, and such (much like the List of free MMORPGs). If a few people agree I'll get started asap. --Odie5533 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing you might want to consider is a tag for the platform for ease of viewing? PS2/PC/Mac/GC/XBOX 360/XBOX, or something. So that one doesn't have to visit every link individually to be able to tell.

Expanding the list of 3D MMORPGs

I'd like to expand the 3d section of this list to provide more information on each game, on a single page. The items I would like to include, that I've thought of so far are:

• name, developer, publisher
• one line summary of theme/plot
• number of subscribers
• peak activity to date
• age
• whether RMT is officially: banned, permitted, or supported
• size of development staff if available
• real world region with most popularity
• name of currency and rough exchange rate to US dollar (added 10/28)

I realize this means changing the structure of this section a little bit, and being relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm all ears for ideas of how best to format the information. It would be nice if the resulting list were sortable by different fields, but I don't think wikipedia does that, right? So the two questions are:

• how should this best be displayed
• what other fields should be included when doing research

I'll give at least a week before I get started for comments --Duozmo 11:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Since this list is under constant evolution, it might be best to keep it simple, like most lists, and leave specifics to the relevant articles. Otherwise, I believe an approximate size of the playerbase and the date of conception could indeed be relevant to the casual browser. -- Jean-Philippe 11:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from. One point I should make is that I am willing (and plan to) do all the work for this, initially. I will try to keep the facts & figures up to date but I can't promise that, so perhaps that is a reason not to do it at all. The bigger issue is that looking at the list of MMORPGs, I can't really tell what games are serious and have caught on, and which haven't. There's nothing to differentiate them, which is what I'm really interested in correcting. --Duozmo 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've done some research and it's become clear to me that I in fact can not handle this project. What I've done is merged the data from two data sources: Wikipedia and MMORPG.com. What I found is that there is depressingly little overlap (about 30%) between the two lists, and I came up with a list of 256 individual MMOGs in the end. I thought the dataset would be a lot less, so it's too much for me. If anyone wants to help, or just to have my data, please leave a note on my talk page. Barring that, I'm afraid I have to back out of this project. --Duozmo 14:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Idea: Separate between concept/in development/released/dead games would be nice

---

Rename to List of MMOGs

Shouldn't this be renamed/moved (however it works) to List of MMOGs seing as how games like Shattered Galaxy are not Role Playing at all? ampre 06:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, MMOG would be a more accurate title.

--Kevin 00:01, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. List of MMOGs would be a fit title for this list. --Odie5533 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both persons above. From MMOG we can then expand into a tree like structure. The first branch can be Text / Graphical. -- Tauszet 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hmmm... Realms of Chaos and PlaneShift in one category? I like both! But PlaneShift is a 3D game while RoC is a text MUD. Not to say most MUDs are free! [Not like 3D MMORPGs ;)] --80.98.246.64 05:35, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Dungeon Siege? Someone needs to categorize this list, as well as move entries to other pages. This is a list of MMORPGs, not a list of MMOs or multiplayer games.

---

i think many of these games should be off the list this should be strictly for mmorpg. maybe we could have a definition at the front of this article on what an mmorpg is to lower the number who put a game in the wrong catagory. other then your examples there is also achea (i think that is it) if you go into the artcle the title is achea(mud) so why is this in the mmorpg catagory.

---

What do you think of adding some kind of info about Free Trials? Colorfast 00:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Huh? Maple Story is 3D? Either I'm not picking up on something, or someone didn't do his/her homework. The Trashman 23:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this too.. Last time I checked, "MapleStory is a free 2D side-scrolling MMORPG". --Kit 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Free Games

Some indication of what games are free would be great as well. I like the trial idea too.

~TonFP

I don't believe this should be included, the notion of what game's free or not is too broad, many if not most commercial games offer free trials, and sometime, games that advertise themself as free do provide added content to paying customers (see Anarchy Online, "Other Notes"). I'll remove the relevant section from the list. --Jean-Philippe 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

~ I think this should be included with the games when they are listed. Choose one of four categories: all free, free trial, pay for features, and not free.

All Free: Money is not needed and will have no effect on your account status Free Trial: You must pay after a certain time Pay For Features: You can play for free, but some part of the game cost money Not Free: Pay to play. Cannot do anything without money

• Role of Money. I've hinted at this at the discussion of merging the free list below. But to elaborate more, to expand on the definition of free, the page should define the "role of real money" in the game. So to if I may incorporate the concept of tables just below, we can have a column for the role of $$$. This column's cells will be filled with numbers (footnotes) where we can have a definition of the number below. A sample list of the different content:

Software (the game itself: Guild Wars)

Subscription (monthly fee: WoW, EQ2, etc.)

Affects core content (free status of game limits players <e.g. level cap/content>)

Enhances game play (the core game is fully playable for free: Gpotato games)

-- Tauszet 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

How about changing this to a table?

I'm thinking something like Comparison of handheld gaming consoles. I would suggest to only do this for major titles, with some minimal number of active players. If we do this I would create some templates that would make editing the table code a lot easier. Another possibility would be to create another article, Comparison of major MMORPGs. Dab:

General Information

	Developer	First public release date	Game series	Cost / Cost per month (USD)	Platform
World of Warcraft	Blizzard Entertainment	November 23, 2004	Warcraft	$50 / $15	PC

Further details

	Active subscribers	Genre	Gameplay focus	Another detail	And another
World of Warcraft	?	Fantasy	PVP	Woo	Hoo

This table obviously is something I made up in two minutes. So, several questions:

• Is this a good idea to do?
• What fields should we have in the table? Please suggest better ones.
• Should the requirement for being on the list be active subscribers, or peak subscibers. If we use peak then we could include old games such as UO and Everquest that aren't really being played any longer but are an important part of MMORPG history.

If there's some animo I might nominate this for the WP:GCOTW. Jacoplane 10:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Anyone? Jacoplane 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the article, but it looks like the table would be a huge improvement. I think your General Information table would probably make the most sense to implement (at first, at least.) Mrtea 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest checking the page MMORPG.com for relevant columns to include. Anywayz, I would agree with going to a table form...otherwise this page might as well be a category page. --Prod-You 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. If only all lists were as beautiful. Also as a suggestion for field types, depending on which games will qualify for the table format, I think a "Gameplay Type" column would be helpful for seperating the many different types of games from each other. (mainly, tick-based browser games and real-time standalone games) Kil 15:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• • This is a good idea, but think about removing general subscribers, to remove the load on the updaters???

Philip

I'm all for the table idea! But first, I think the categories need to be redone, per my comment at the top of this page. --Naha|^(talk) 04:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you may want to differentiate between 'PC' and 'PC/Mac', seeing as WoW is clearly the latter, and this may make people think otherwise.

Updating page

I'll be creating the new table as I described above. I won't put it in the article yet, but will be working on it under List of MMORPGs/Temp. I'll get started on it later today. Jacoplane 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look at the temp page. There's a to do on the talk page. As I mentioned there, I have a document with data that I'm trying to use, but I'm having problems with that. Please comment! Jacoplane 10:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should drop the further details table and the Game Series column. It looks great otherwise :) --Kevin 20:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks great so far! We should put it in alphabetical order at some point hehe. --Naha|^(talk) 13:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Neopets

There is some confusion over whether Neopets is a MMORPG or not. Could someone please clear this up? If it is, should Neopets Premium be listed separately since the Premium version is a pay to play?

I don't think it is because the neopets "world" is set up differently. It's more computer based than user based and you rarely interact with other players in person.--Alythria

Text-based MMORPGs?

Should there be a category for Text? At the moment one exists with 14 entrys. A text MMO is a MUD, there are countless numbers of MUDs out there. (see http://www.mudconnect.com/), should there be a seperate list for MUDs?

Discuss merge with List of free MMORPGs

• Support - bring that list into this article, but make it a list/table/as discussed above, not an advertising page for each site. -- MrDolomite | Talk 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support ~ I agree, but it should be a bit of an advertising thing, except not an advertisment, like it is now, with a little description for each game so you know what your getting into and you don't have to wait for the site's main page to load if your not interested. ~VNinja~ 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Make a list or table as discussed, and remove advertising page for each site. I too think that free mmorpgs need to be a subdirectory of list of mmorpgs. But the merge is prioritary, even without division. Antonio Carlos Porto 18:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral As long as the free MMORPGs are not mixed with the paid ones. Also make a heading on top saying that these are free MMORPGs--• Storkian • 23:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I vote against the merging of the two lists. arg.

• Oppose I'm too tight to shell out on these things - having the free ones all together makes it much easier to find one I like. MikesPlant 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Same reason as above, I think that a lot of people LOOK FOR the free ones specifically. I might support if you merged it into the other article but had 2 seperate tables for the p2p and the freebies, but would need to see a preview. Implementing a table WOULD be a good feature for this article, as it is a little too disorganized considering it is trying to compare many similar things. Might add a column of wether or not it has an in game cash shop. --Rgb9000

• Oppose Read above, but I also agree with what the supporters are saying about the advertisment-like format. That needs to be changed. Djsonik 00:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose A list's purpose is to organize things so they can easily be located. Putting the free MMO's with subscription games would defeat the purpose.

• Oppose This list is very well organized, helpful, and its the first thing I tell any user on a message board who is looking for free MMORPGs. I just say: "Head to Wikipedia and search for the List of Free MMORPGs". 199.111.88.233 18:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I beleive that users and guests would love free mmorpgs seperate from ones that cost because many people don't have the money but are bored out of their mind. [awesomedrillingsound]

• Oppose From the point of view of (List of MMORPG) it's no big deal since the free list is small. But from the point of view of (List of Free MMORPG), it's a disaster since the list of of MMORPG is huge. But I think the bigger issue is how to define FREE as in how does money play a role. (i.e. Software? Subscription? Affects basic gameplay(see poxnora, I know it's not RPG, but it is MMO)? Enhances content (money is a nice add-on but not needed)? -- Tauszet 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - With the list in its current format this would be terrible. If it was changed into a sortable table, with one column on weather or not it is free I would support. Mattyatty 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that we first nuke any which do not have any reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources for an entry it has no place here anyway, so that is hardly a problem. Once the unsourceable ones (i.e. most) are removed, no further problem. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• OpposeThe List of MMORPG is HUGE! It will be even harder to find games. Most people like games that are free, so if it is put together than everyone will get frustrated. Even now, the List of Free MMORPG is big. sakura741 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why should the list of free MMORPGs be merged with the list of MMORPGs, yet the list of Free FPS games not be merged with the list of FPS games? Drak Swordsman 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because the FPS list hasn't been merged doesn't mean it won't be merged. --Wafulz 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • True, true... but that also doesn't mean there isn't a chance it won't be merged :P Anyways, if they are merged (either list) they should have some way to tell between P2P and F2P games, IMHO. Even if it's something simple, like marking each game F2P or P2P, and then I can just search for F2P through the page. Drak Swordsman 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it is important to keep visibility of free projects high (like wikipedia is one), therefore no merge. --Gego 08:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaissance War

What is this game? I for one, have never of it. Has anyone else? - Sammy

GunBound

Unless they killed the old GunBound and made a totally new game in its place, GunBound is NOT an MMORPG in ANY sense of the term. Therefore, I removed it from the article.

Oops, forgot to sign the above edit. Viltris 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In gunbound, you play the ROLE of a little boy/girl who pilots various and asundry vehicles in an effort to destroy another team. The storyline may not be as deep (read: virtually nonexistant) as other RPGs, and I can see where you are coming from, BUT there are guilds, player inventories, trading, chat rooms, buddy lists and other features common among all MMORPGs. Plus it is famous for being a free MMO and has been around for a very long time. I won't readd it myself but I think it deserves a little consideration. After all, in what category would you place it if not here? And do you really want to segment and categorize free online games that far?

--Rgb9000

If thats the case, then any game could be considered an RPG where people interact. The thing is, is that its not set-up to BE a roleplaying game. It set up to be a turn-based strategy shooting game(Same as Worms World Party). You can Roleplay in a multiplayer "Unreal Tournament" game, but that doesnt make it an RPG.

Also, just because it shares features doesnt make it an RPG. Just because WoW has a buddylist, doesnt mean that Gunbound is an RPG just because it has a buddylist. Almost any game that has you subscribe can have a buddylist.

--SSLRranma

I agree with SSLRranma. A genre name is more than just the sum of the words. Just because you play a role doesn't make it a role-playing game. ('Cause if that were true, almost EVERY game would be an RPG, because in almost every game, you play a role, be it from Mario to starfighter pilot to random NFL football team coach. Not only that, but most games would also be strategy games, 'cause most games are strategy. Summary: Playing a role != role-playing.)

Not only that, but GunBound doesn't even match all the words in the term MMORPG. It's multiplayer, but it's not MASSIVELY multiplayer. There are at most 8 players in one game. If you consider that "massively" multiplayer... well, no. Just... just no. Massively is some thousands of players in a world simultaneously, like WoW or Final Fantasy 11 (just to name the recent popular ones). Viltris 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are at least 1000 people online at peak times on Gunbound: Revolution, however I'm not really sure about Gunbound: World Champion, however, even though I wouldn't call Gunbound an MMORPG, I would call it an MMO. 75.177.29.207 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was me, forgot to sign Lyoko is Cool 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of MMORPGs/Temp

I'd object in the strongest possible way to having the page changed to a table. It makes maintenance much harder, and discourages very new users from adding material. - brenneman ^{L} 11:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, most people that contribute to wikipedia don't know much about the markup language. -TheGoogle 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IMVU

I removed IMVU, as this is in every essence a Internet Messenger program, not a game, let alone a MMORPG. --211.26.90.27 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Flight Simulator

I am removing this clearly because it is not an MMORPG. 75.177.29.207 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was me, forgot to sign Lyoko is Cool 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kings of Chaos

where'd this game go, i swear it was in this list before, i can't find anything about it on the whole site. was it deleted or something?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.106.216 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Chaos. —Cryptic 10:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First things first.

The first thing I ask myself as I look through these games is, "Can I play this on my computer?” One very useful way of ranking these would be to determine if the game will play on, for instance, direct x, or some special, rare, graphic card that very few people are likely to have. Many people buy computers off the shelf and there are some games that 'snub' these common chipsets. On the other hand, success might just be a software upgrade or an extra ram chip away.

A final but unrelated comment: Oddly when you go to the official website, there is so much attention to what are new and supporting established players that it can be difficult to figure out just what it is you will be doing if you take up this game. Do I want to have fun or do I want to have a new career?

Another Unnoticed

Somebody kept trying to put in another MMORPG on the list, called Zanpo. I checked it out, it is an MMORPG. I really don't know how to add links in Wiki, though.

http://www.zanpo.com/

Rakion

Rakion is not a MMORPG. It is a 3RD person fighter

-JH

Textures or vectors in MMOs/MMORPGs...

I would like to ask the following question:

Has anyone noticed that some games have texture based characters, objects, nature and evironment while others have a more vector beased way of showing thier wolrds/players on the end user's monitors? It can also be described as sprite based versus 3D-based.

While I am not sure if we should notice this, or differenciate the two types I am certainly aware that some players (according to my studies monstly players over the ge of 35) widely prefer games that are sprite based.

Any thoughts? Would you like me to list some of the games that I consider definitely belong in one of the two categories?

--Abelius 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Cordially, Abelius

BTW, I totally agree on IMVU not being a game. --Cordially, Abelius 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Who removed "A3 - Age of Sovereign" from the list?

Whoever is it: do a google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=a3+age+of+sovereign), it IS an MMORPG. 74.112.121.40 08:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It should be re-added.213.232.79.139 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It says pretty clearly links without articles will be removed. If it didn't have an article, then that's why it was removed. --Wafulz 15:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see that (that was me). Thanks. I'm new here, so there are some things I don't get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JH17 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Where's the list?

Ok so what happened to the article?

---

Re: Modification

Removed random unnecessary text from the Q field as posted by another non-member Wikipedia user. 75.177.181.148 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your diligence. Marasmusine 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

what?

ok i understand that some have more importance than others, but to delete them entirely from the list is wrong. Why? Well to make it fair wikipedia should have an entry for higher more established mmorpg but also and accredit one a full list. It says list so it should be a list.... Just becasue Eve Online is big doesn't mean it should get on the list because its famous to me thats like an advertisement because I go here to fine good games. Chosenspace is a game I tried to add and I was writing a fair article on it but I've seen others deleted and it was deleted from the list! This to me is wrong and unjust. I may have written wierd things in the past but that was my friends on my user id. However, this does not warrant the unjust advertisement that some games get treated as.

Lists are to aid wikipedia navigation; i.e. all the entries in the list should point to existing wikipedia articles. This is also to stop people from advertising their (unnotable) web games, per WP:NOT a directory and WP:EL. Marasmusine 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If lists are just to aid navigation: I propose this list provides no auxillary function to the category at this point in time, and is best purged from wikispace entirely until miscellenous issues at related wikiprojects are resolved. An ideal list would be able to provide information not contained in a single category (lnaguage, country, publisher, graphics, setting/genre, gameplay PvE/PvP, etc.) but this is just lame at this point, even after I clean up the sections.--ZayZayEM 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, per WP:LIST; they are a navigation aid but they supplement categories because they can be annotated or put in orders other than alphabetical. No need to scrap at all. For example, we could re-order this list into chronological order. Marasmusine 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a decent annotated list can't be done. I'm just saying that this current list doesn't offer anything substantially more than the category system. It would seem easier to scrap it for now until Video Game WikiProjects or a genuinely motivated editor puts teh effort in to create something helpful.--ZayZayEM 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It is the kind of anal thing I'd be prepared to go ahead and do myself. I'm thinking listing by theme, or by year of release. Marasmusine 07:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title name seems sensible; but I could see some benefit from year of release.--ZayZayEM 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK um just LIST what is a LIST list is a list. so just to scrap it even if there isn't a article well maybe some people want allow one for somereason........yes blatent advirtisement for trying to right an article on a game when other games can say everything they want about it. The list is fine its just that some Freudian problems keep interferring with yourself.

FlyFF

is fly for fun an mmorpg?

That's a good question. It's certainly an multiplayer online game, but I don't know if it is massive or a role-playing game. Perhaps we could find some independent references to qualify it? Marasmusine 12:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

From the article

Characters defeat monsters for experience points, which add up to level-ups and increased power. In the most recent version of Flyff, characters gain skill points based on their level, and get a set amount when they change jobs.

sounds like a computer roleplaying game to me, it's only online play, and massive = MMORPG --ZayZayEM 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Flyff is a mmorpg, think about it, ROLE PLAYING, if theres lvling +/or quests its a rpg. 210.84.27.155 09:10, (UTC)16 Sep 07 Turnni1

Of course

these pages should be merged so someone who is looking for a good mmorpg can scroll down the first list and then at the bottom of the page can look at the advantages and disadvantages of each game, instead of going back and forth between 2 pages WiseC 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pivotal: What is this list????

This list needs major cleanup and direction.--ZayZayEM 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The first issue that needs to be resolved: is this a list of MMOs or MMORPGs (Title suggests latter)?

After that:

1. What makes an MMO an RPG?
   • Use of experience points/currency? c.f. Audition Online
   • In depth role playing? who seriously roleplays their lvl 70 Troll Hunter "Ownzyouzall" in World of Warcraft?
   • Avatar customization? some MUDs don't even give you an avatar
   • Dynamic world/storyline?
   • Character progression?
2. What makes an RPG an MMO
   • Someone has brought up Neopets: while webbased and having a "massive" player base - is the player-to-player interaction enough to warrant it being classed as "multiplayer"?
   • If there is off-line content can a game be called an MMO?
   • Is PvP required? Is Player cooperation required?
3. Do MUDs count as MMORPGs?
   • arguably the predecessors for modern MMORPGs, Multi User Dungeons combine online gameplay, player interaction, and often quite scarily in depth roleplaying --- but are they "massive"?

---

Without delving into original research, we can only say that MMORPGs are those which have been described as MMORPGs in reliable sources (regardless of if they actually are.) My own definition of MMO is a game which has no strict upper limit of players in one persistant gameworld. So Diablo 2 isn't an MMORPG because it limits the number of players on each 'game instance', and neither is Kingdom of Loathing (although described as such), because the gameworld isn't persistant or shared (it's a 'massively single player RPG'.) Marasmusine 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. As long as it's called a MMORPG in reliable independent thrid-party sources, I can't see how anyone could object. DarkSaber2k 10:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Computer_role-playing_game seems a good source for determining criteria. I have been deleting items such as Neopets and Puzzle Pirates from the list. While these contain many MMO and Roleplay and Gaming elements; they don't bring them together create an MMORPG. This requires roleplay gaming in a massively multiplayer interactive server environment; not just roleplay and miscellaneous gaming online. Feel free to ask for clarification or disagree.

• Yea see what! and chosenspace follows everything of what you said and keeps getting deleted
  • Please wikilink to the articles you are talking about.--ZayZayEM 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AdventureQuest?!

ADVENTUREQUEST IS NOT AN MMORPG. Its actually singleplayer.

Then we must call it Massively (if it is that?) Singe-player browser RPG 8^) 65.8.148.143 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Legends of Kathara

A BRAND new game, not on the list yet but as soon as I can add it I will. It's sort of a work in progress and not completely finished but they add updates Daily. and Its really fun so far there's only like 3 members so the more that join I think that would help! The owner of the game calls himself Traine and is really nice. I hope to see many of you on the Game by the way, here's the website

Can we remove ads from talk pages?--ZayZayEM 04:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link. Will have chat on users talk page :> Marasmusine 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cybernations

Is Cybernations a MMORPG? It claims to be one in the cybernations article.

• Not anymore ^_^ --ZayZayEM 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Comparison of Massively multiplayer online role-playing games seems to be more appropriate style and organisation that this list should aspire too. I suggest possibly moving/importing that article to here.--ZayZayEM 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Marasmusine 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because the comparison data does not fall into line with the List format. Any merge would result in the removal of all useful content of the comparison. It should be noted that comparison articles exist also in many other cases (e.g. Comparison of web browsers) and no merge requests have been made for those. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The comparison page has significantly expanded since I proposed this (It didn't have an engine table at all). I'm gonna remove the merge notice. I think a similar style though, containing important data such as

• Game Name
• No. servers
• Playerbase
• Languages
• Platform
• Graphics (text, 2D,
• Setting genre
• Last updated
• etc.

should be included. I'd also like to see the list ordered by decade of release or something similar, rather than name.--ZayZayEM 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OGPlanet Games

Can somebody please start and article on the games Rumble Fighter, Albatross 18, and BB Tanks. I play all three, but I stink at making articles lol. Oh and if you can't can you tell me the reason why. Thx Tythesly 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they aren't notable? Marasmusine 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a hard time understanding that notable thing. Does it just mean it isn't popular enough? Tythesly 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Something is (usually) notable if it has had coverage from an independent, reliable source. In the case of video games, this will usually be a review from a gaming magazine or from a website with editorial control. It isn't related to popularity (although if something is popular, that increases its chance of being covered by the gaming press.) Marasmusine 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I just noticed this. Why is Albatross 18 have an article, but Rumble Fighter and BB Tanks dont? Tythesly 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because no-one has started a Rumble Fighter or BB Tanks article yet? And no, I don't think the Albatross 18 article sufficiently passes WP:N in its current state. Marasmusine 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental flaw

There are technically dozens and dozens of MMORPGs on the Internet, with more possilbly being founded as we speak. However, the vast majority of these will never obtain very large numbers, and will be destinned to remain the netherworld of remote, ailing small online communities. In reality, only a handful of games have truely risen to the top. These include World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, Runscape, and a few others. Other MMORPGs, while not nearly as big as the previous three, have gained a small amount of attention. These could include Toontown, Club Penguin, Everquest, and Eve online. (Mabye) Beyond this point, the vast majority of MMORPGs, however, will most likely never grow to large sizes and will die with a whimper. There are too many to list on this post. My point is, should we even bother including the smaller ones? Fusion7 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"ailing small online communities", please not MMO stands for Massive multiplayer online.

Also Toontown and Clube Penguin are not MMORPGs, they are virtual communities.

Any genuine MMORPG that is notable enough to have an article in wikipedia should be included in this list.--ZayZayEM 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I lurve this article

Zelda is not an RPG.

I like the comments.

It counters the "but ur playing a ROLE" argument with "is Mario Bros an RPG then". Any video game puts you in a role. An RPG mimics pen and paper RPGs in a computer game format. Experience, levels, avatars and chance rolls.--ZayZayEM 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

World War 2 Online

I believe this game qualifies, but it has been removed several times, so I'm hoping to add discussion on the point. Why shouldn't the game qualify:

1) It's massive - with thousands of players in a single game world, and without server instances.

2) It's online - internet based.

3) It's an RPG:

3a) Players create one of several personals (avatars, if you will), which can join squads, and basically have their own identity.

3b) Many players even participate in traditional roleplay - creating and roleplaying a unique identity for their character, immitating and exercising WWII era tactics and language.

3c) Player gain rank with every kill or objective, gaining levels, in the process being granted additional capabilities and responsibilities. Experience is tracked with experience points and points required for the next level.

True, the game is an FPS, but I don't see that the first-person nature should disqualify the game from the list. It is very much an MMORPG to many of its players. I don't see that a game's setting in a world war 2 timeframe, or the fact one holds a gun rather than a sword has much to do with the category.

64.174.34.250 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is not identified as a Computer role-playing game (characteristic based system, quest/task based experience gain - not necessarily actual roleplay). It is identified very strongly as a MMOFPS Please elaborate further, avoid WP:OR to suggest this point. Pleas note several non-fantasy based MMORPGs are included such as Auto Assault and City of Villains, as well as unreleased historically based Frontier 1859--ZayZayEM 01:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, no original research is very important. Here are just a few external references which describe WWIIOL as an MMORPG. There are many!

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/news/gameID/34/showArticle/6284

http://play.tm/wire/cluster/1499826

http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=2781

http://vnboards.ign.com/mmorpg_player_reviews/b22600/59743341/p2/

I suspect you aren't very familiar with the game, so to address your concerns more individually, I think you are incorrect on both points:

The game does have quest/task based experience gain. Characters are rewarded different amounts of points depending on what objectives are met. For instance, if you destroy an enemy bridge, you get more points than say killing an enemy infantry. Or, if you kill an enemy tank as an infantryman, you get more points than destroying an enemy tank with another tank. These points help to gain levels (rank), which give your characters more capabilities in the game.

I agree that World War II Online's characteristic based system is very limited (only health states, endurance, and level (rank)), but these are natural for an RPG where "death" is immediate. However, MMORPG is genre, and genres are not absolute. Read the page on genre, "In all art forms, genres are vague categories with no fixed boundaries". World War II Online fits most of the characteristics listed on the Computer role-playing game page. And that is why so many consider it an MMORPG. The fact that it is weaker in one category than other games is irrelevant.

64.174.34.250 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should describe it as an MMORPG if enough reliable, independent references describe it as one. I'm not conviced about the reliablility of some of the links you provided, but there are plenty of more formal reviews that describe it as a MMORPG (gamezone for example). Mmorpg.com place the game as both an MMORPG and a "massively multiplayer combat simulation"!. We have to be careful of the kind of clumsy labelling that calls games like Kingdom of Loathing an MMORPG though. Marasmusine 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One more point I want clarified:

• Is it a persitent world? Does it progress outside of individual player interactions? That is, can player actions have an affect greater then their immediate surrounds (such as faction zone control)?--ZayZayEM 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, buildings can be damaged and are repaired slowly over time. Similarly, bridges can be destroyed, and rebuilt by the players. Also, cities and firebases can be captured by opposing sides. As such, front lines are formed and move slowly over time across the map. Factories can be bombed to slow the opposing sides research and development. That should give you a sample. 64.174.34.254 15:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How persistent? This sounds like an RTS.--ZayZayEM 16:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is a persistant world (IGN), however it seems to be more commonly described as a MMOFPS (MMORPG.Com say "WWIIOL utilizes a military rank system of player leadership which adds a RPG element to this MMOFPS") Since it also has a few 'MMORPG' descriptors in the media, I say we give the benefit of the doubt. Marasmusine 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it has enough gaming media sources to give it benefit of the doubt. I really don't like the idea of using mainstream media sources, as MMORPG seems to have been adopted as an innapropriate umbrella term for any MMO; as ultimately any MMO will involve a persistent world + avatar (which allows roleplay, but necessarily RPG).--ZayZayEM 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by how persistent, ZayZayEM. Exactly what are you trying to understand?

If you're wondering how persistent the changes are in terms of time, the answer is until the changes are undone by another users actions.

If you're wondering how persistent the changes are, in terms of server failures, the answer is that the world state persists through server outages, such as when the servers are brought down to patch.

I'm not sure where you're going with the RTS comment. I suppose you could see it as having elements of RTS, yes, although I don't generally hear people referring to the game as an RTS. I suppose it is more proper to say it is an MMORPG with RTS gameplay elements. 64.174.34.252 06:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the information I wanted. It sounds like it might make it until this list gets it's well deserved clean up. It is firstly a MMOFPS, with RPG elements. However, from my personal view, without a detailed RPG-style characteristics system or chance/attribute-based combat, its classification as a CRPG is rather shakey.--ZayZayEM 07:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been an introducing discussion for me, and I'll participate when this cleanup occurs. I certainly understand your desire to clearly define the genre, but I can't help but be concerned that your definition is overly restrictive and not conforming to common use of the term. I again stress that you need to keep in mind you are listing entries to a genre, not entries to a categorization. Where a categorization is precise and strictly defined, a genre is a reflection of popular culture, and is defined as such. As soon as you try to define popular culture's use of a word, you'll find yourself wrong. In my mind, you can only rely on an assortment of materials to confirm that any game has been called an MMORPG in a variety of popular media. It is simply incorrect to tell the rest of the world that they are using the term incorrectly. That's not what genres are about. Similarly, you cannot say that a game fits in only one genre. A game can just as easily fit into both the MMOFPS and MMORPG genres as a Claude Monet painting can fit into both the impressionist and plein-air genres.

I also love the precision of clear definition, but you must understand that popular culture and art are imprecise by nature. 64.174.34.250 23:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also disagree on your assessment of the term genre and category in these senses. I wouldn't call "RPG" a genre in your definition, to me it's like calling a oil canvas a watercolour - but yes there is certain haziness when a damn artist decides to use oil and watercolours on canvas. Bastard artists.--ZayZayEM 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Resurfacing

Can I point out our Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter article introduces a synomous term MMOFPSRPG {massively multiplayer online first-person role-playing shooter game}. I'd really like to remove this article from the list. "role-playing" in computer games is not a referencing to character-gaming (you play a "role" of a superhero plumber in Mario Bros.). It is a specific genre CRPG that is based on pen-paper RPG dynamics.

If you can't transform the computer game into a viable pen-paper game, it shouldn't be an MMORPG. MMORPG are characterised by grinding skill-less play. If it requires actual skill (eg. personal ability to aim a gun/sword, rather than avatar's in-game attributes), it has non-CRPG elements. Or conversely if it relies on avatar's in-game skill or character attributes to accomplish tasks rather than user ability, it has CRPG elements.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is what allows Shot-Online to be classed as MMORPG, as characters have attributes that offset actual player skill.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect addition

I just noticed Guild Wars is in the list, wich is incorrect even by your own standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.70.223 (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

tribalwars.net

I notice www.tribalwars.net is not added...I just got into the game and it's pretty good once you learn how to play

I also notice that www.outwar.com isn't on the list, but it's stretching the term to call it a MMORPG :-) 87.194.44.145 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of those sound familiar, I think they have been on this list before (a couple of times), but were removed because they weren't notable. Maybe if they are popular enough they will get some media coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

where are these classical mmorpgs ?

diablo2 , from blizzard

ultima online , from Origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.204.151.164 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultima Online was a glaring omission; added it. Diablo 2 isn't massively multiplayer. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Angels Online

Angels Online - an angel-themed MMORPG with fantasy setting is not yet included in this article. 195.16.50.112 (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Loathing

Whilst I completely agree that KoL is not an MMORPG, it is continually referred to as one, even by reliable sources ([1] for example). The opening sentence of our WP:V policy; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, means we have to mention Kingdom of Loathing here.

However, I propose we find some kind of reference that clearly states KoL is not a MMORPG. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say if that source thinks KoL is an MMORPG it's not too reliable ^_^ .--ZayZayEM 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But what about the fact that Wikipedia (That's you you know) says it's a mmorpg, if you read the article about it you'll see why. And it IS an mmorpg and deserves respect for that. And furthermore if you think it isn't and everybody else does YOU'RE WRONG, admit it. 220.255.230.88 (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• "And furthermore if you think it isn't and everybody else does YOU'RE WRONG" My, that's some awesome logic. If reliable source's list it as an MMORPG, isn't it Wikipedia's policy to list it as one regardless whether it is or not. 71.247.159.243 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Face of Mankind

This MMORPG is currently 'on hold' and will be re-released as Face of Mankind: Rebirth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.152.248 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-criteria list

Thought this might help some people who have questions as to why their favourite game is not on the list, or is continually removed.

To be in this list, a video or computer game must:

1. Have an article
2. Be a computer role-playing game - not RTS, FPS, Hack n Slash or virtual universe
3. Be a massively multiplayer online game - not simply online, not simply multiplayer, and not MUDs
4. Be an MMORPG

This usually means CRPG

1. User "avatar with quantized characteristics which change over the course of the game in predictable ways and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determining in game outcome"
2. "Players are allowed to choose how they want to improve their character's (or party's) performance in terms of attributes, skills, special abilities, and equipment"
3. Experience based OR Training based method of character development (or combination)
4. Quests, or other set tasks
5. NPCs

MMO

1. Solely online based play
2. persistent virtual world that "which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game"
3. continuous player base in at least hundreds
4. "players cooperate and compete with each other on a grand scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world"

In general: User has a RPG avatar that develops through P2P and P2E interaction on a grand scale in a persistent virtual universe through an internet connection. (emphasis on points that tend to be lacking in games added to this list) --ZayZayEM 02:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Well I agree with your definition of a MMORPG. However, I'm concerned that this is bordering on original research, when we should be relying entirely on reliable sources. It is painful to list things like Kingdom of Loathing though, when they are obviously not MMORPGs, but most sources call it one.

If we have concensus, let's follow WP:IAR (ignoring WP:V O_O ) and use our own criteria. Marasmusine 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can cobble together some external definitions such as [2] (which closely matches what you've listed), appending "Must have an article with reliable sources and an assertion of notability." Marasmusine 15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If a game has all the qualities of a MMORPG, but it's FPS, why should that automatically disqualify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.148.179 (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the list if multiple reliable sources describe it as a MMORPG, and it has a Wikipedia article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you calling the qualities of an MMORPG? If it is not a CRPG, it doesn't possess all the qualities of an MMORPG. Just because it resembles something, or advertises itself as, doesn't mean it is.--ZayZayEM (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

That's an interesting one. I didn't even know about Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. At the moment List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games has no useful annotation and is in alphabetical order, so is just duplicating the category. The comparative list is a bit harder to read for navigation purposes but in the end is the better list. I propose using the page name and lead text from this list, and merge in the table from the comparative list. Marasmusine (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link, and or mention of MMORPG-X.COM/MMORPGTOP100 in the External Links section

Dear Editors,

May I mention to put www.mmorpg-x.com/mmorpgtop100 link to the external links category, since it is one of the most popular mmorpg toplist on the net.

Thanks, Admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggot (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

age of conan has been released, so I think it's "in production" tag should be removed. thanks guys.

age of conan has been released, so I think it's "in production" tag should be removed. thanks guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Amo (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Starport

I think Starport: Galactic Empires should be added as it's an MMORPG that is fairly popular and has been around for a while. Weizur (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Non MMORPGS?

I'm just wondering why this article has many non mmorpgs. For example Club penguin.

Club Penguin is one of those games that keeps getting put on and taken of and put back on again. However, like I mentioned with Kingdom of Loathing above, as soon as a reliable source calls the game a MMORPG, that's what we have to report here. Marašmusïne_Talk 22:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Club penguin is a mmo, what do people dont get about that.... 210.84.27.155 09:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Turnni1

Notice this is a list for MMORPG's, not MMO's. There is a different list for that. CLub penguin could be considered as as MMO but not an MMORPG. Arain321_Talk 23:06, 5 January 2008

It's a massively multiplayer online? 75.55.51.147 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

MMOG should be the right term. ...RuineЯ|Chat... 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars

Guild Wars is B2P not F2P as you need a CD code to play. --68.226.98.245 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

War of Legends removal

I added an entry for War of Legends, mostly on the grounds that Evony also has a listing, but it was removed. Rather than enter an edit war I'd like to get an opinion on if either or both games should be listed here. My argument is that in both games you are playing the part of a leader of your nation and that plenty of RP happens on the game servers between players. Wolhound (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Evony probably shouldn't be here, either. As I mentioned on my talk page, I'm also interested if this qualifies as a massively multiplayer game as opposed to simply multiplayer. Any idea of how many players it supports simultaneously? Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, both mmorpg.com (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/486/Evony.html) and bbgsite (http://gamelist.bbgsite.com/goto/evony_32__28_civony_29_.shtml) list Evony as an MMO. Mmosite does not, but as a sister-site to BBG, the later being specialised in Browser-based games, that may be the reason.

If only for the ad campaign, I'd be tempted to erase all reference to Evony, thay don't deserve the added "publicity", but then that would be fait, objective encyplopedic work. Chealar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

The issue isn't whether or not they are MMOs. They are strategy games, not RPGs. Marasmusine (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The 4th Coming

T4Cmay not be a big game, but it's one of the first graphical MMO (1996). In this regard it is notable. I've reversed the edit on this one, but the article has also been deleted... Is there anyway to revert that deleting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chealar (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion debate, it was indeed deleted over notability issues. The way to recreate deleted articles is to simply create a new page, but this is a very bad idea as this is specifically against the rules -- Recreating an article that there was a consensus for deletion. If you simply want a copy of the deleted article for whatever reason, you can contact one of people listed here[3], but please don't re-create the article. Eik Corell (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've got a quality reference or two to verify the game, it can go in this list regardless of if it has an article or not. Marasmusine (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To Tables

I've worked on several "list" articles like this one and when they've gotten to the size of this one, converting the contents to tables really helped. Being able to sort the contents really made the lists more useful. Below is my suggestion for a possible table format.

Name	Begin	End	Description
2Moons	2007	Current	3D, medieval fantasy, free-to-play
The 4th Coming	1999	Current	3D isometric Fantasy, free-to-play on most servers
9Dragons	2007	Current	3D, Chinese martial arts, free-to-play

What think ye? More columns? Fewer? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reservations. It seems like making lists sortable and adding more details only encourages detail/fancruft creep, until the article looks something like Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Not that this is necessarily bad, but it starts to violate WP:V: a simple list article can often get by without references, but if we're going to include dates and genres we should probably be citing that material. The dates as suggested could also be interpreted in different ways, such as beta vs. retail launch, retail launch country by country, expansions, etc. Even including genres is troublesome, as it seems to be a target for spammers or people who wants to add more detail about their own pet game: details like "3D" and "Fantasy" are cool, "free-to-play" is stretching it, yet some people write a book about every single microtransaction.

To make a long story short (too late), I think we should trim the article back to a simple list. No dates, no genres, no cost information. I think it fits better with WP guidelines and it differentiates the article from Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a table, it's actually been on my long-term to-do list. I think controlling the spam won't be much different to how it is currently. As for columns, I'm not fond of the "2D/3D" and thematic information even in the current list. For me, the salient information is "developer, publisher, release date". This information shouldn't need citing if it's done adequately in the game's article. Perhaps a reference column if its classification as a MMORPG is controversial. Marasmusine (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding publisher and developer columns. As for 2D/3D, I just copied what was in the original list.

I agree we should concur on what the "Begin" date means (beta, official release). I just went with whatever info I could find in the articles. Some of them don't mention official release dates, so I used the beta date. I don't think most of this stuff will need citing if the games have articles. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I suggest merging List of text-based MMORPGs here. SharkD  Talk  08:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least without any stated rationale. "Text-based" seems like a very distinguishing element, given the realities of the market. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Each is a perfectly fine standalone list. Why merge? Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This list is already really long. For many searches, text-based MMO's are kind of irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.196.126 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, discussion closed. SharkD  Talk  06:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Phantasy Star Online

Shouldn't Phantasy Star be added to the list? It is a MMORPG Jon Fawkes 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Phantasy Star Online should.--ZayZayEM 05:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star Universe only allow four or six players to play together, simultaneously. The lobbies, in which you can see other players outside of your party, are no more than visual chat channels (they are as if Diablo II had graphics in its chat channels). Thes two games, by no means, should be considered "MMO," simply because the multiplayer aspect is so limited in scope of player interactivity. KentF 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of an MMORPG: 'a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.' It is not stipulated that the form of interaction necessary to qualify is combat, and social forms are indeed another form of interaction. Additionally, MMORPG, Roleplay, the playing of a role. This is, in fact, even more true in the non-combat areas. Re-added. Have not added Phantasy Star Zero due to lack of 'mass' features beyond server logistics. ChibiKibou 14:41, 13 November 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.73.20 (talk)

Is the game persistent from a player's point of view? I.e. do his/her actions remain in effect from one game session to the next? Or, can the player "restart" the game at level 1 or 10 or 15 or at a previous chapter whenever he wishes? Sounds a lot like Richard Garriott's ideas regarding instance dungeons in Tabula Rasa. Quote:

"Single-player games are great, and I love them. They have a great feature. Your life is very special. You are the hero and you get to save the whole world. You live a truly charmed existence, and around every corner you are finding new things. You're blissfully unaware of your neighbor who is also playing the game. (...) [Tabula Rasa] is like Disney World, which has a hub. You can go to shops and get food, but when you get on the boat for the pirate ride, you're in your own version of reality. Once the ride starts, you are blissfully unaware of the boats in front of you and behind you. Then when you finish, you are in the hub, and you can navigate over to the next place."

I haven't played Diablo II over Battle.Net, so I can't make a comparison. SharkD  Talk  03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia's definition of MMORPGs to decide what does and doesn't go here. We use reliable secondary sources. Every source I've seen describes Phantasy Star Online as an "online RPG", not an "MMORPG". Not even the offical SEGA sources call it an MMORPG. Marasmusine (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept that on PSO, but the definition is much less clear for Universe so I have re-added that. It's either that, or GuildWars and it's ilk, which use basically the same structure, really do need to go, due to being pretty much exactly the same. I also respect the use of 'reliable secondary sources', but the similarities to the aforementioned are pretty obvious. PSU's combat instances may be thus limited but there is persistence, beyond simply being there, to the non-combat areas (as well as the placement and accessibility, and on occasion even content of combat instances) wherein hundreds of people can and have shown up as part of actual game content. And that's not getting into the player-run shops, a persistent and public (unless locked) element in and of themselves. Phantasy Star Online and Universe are not the same, in this regard. ChibiKibou 11:46, 17 November 2010

The official site calls PSU a "massively multiplayer cross-platform roleplaying game", so I'm fine with that. Marasmusine (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

mmorpg.com

Hello,

I'd like to add this list as a reference link. This site has custom filters that allow you to see ratings and free/pay options for all MMOs on the list. Very useful! --158.96.4.5 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're wanting to suggest it as a reliable source for references, I'd suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If you're wanting to add it as a general link at the bottom of this place, I'll ask you this: what does it add to the page? Do you believe it meets our policy on external links? Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

MMORPGS for children

I think that there should be a separate list of MMORPGS aimed at children, such as Club Penguin, Webkinz, Dizzywood, and Neopets, or at least a list of child-friendly MMORPGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.129.4 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Might do this. Especially since none are really RPGs (Club Pengion in particular keeps popping up here) Marasmusine (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The MMORPG 'Sherwood Dungeon' is aimed at a younger audience, I think this idea of separating is good, but until it gets done I just slotted it into the list but it outcrops and I have no idea why, someone please fix it, I don't know what has gone wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willknowsalmosteverything (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the listing for Sherwood Dungeon. The game doesn't have an article and also doesn't appear to meet our notability requirements (both of which go hand-in-hand), which has long been a prerequisite for appearing on this and other list articles. Its parent company, Maid Marian Entertainment, also appears rather non-notable, and I wouldn't be surprised if that article is sent through a deletion discussion sooner rather than later; hence, linking to that article is problematic as well. Now, if we can find at least a single, high-quality source covering the game itself (i.e., not an article on its parent company with a throw-away mention of the game), it would be fair to mention the game in this article, which (again) has quite some precedence on Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2

The article suggests that all expansions and such for Guild Wars 1 and all of Guild Wars 2 is free to play, which is incorrect. Every Guild Wars 1 expansion/campaign and some other content needs to be purchused and the developers themselves have said that Guild Wars 2 will also require you to buy the game. What is correct is that they don't have montly fees, but they are not entierly free. Dhuum (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemium vs. Free-to-play

Can we come to an agreement on naming conventions, or distinctly explain the differences if there is one?

I assume that pay-to-play means there is a subscription model resulting in regular periodic charges, and freemium and free-to-play mean the same thing, that there are no regular charges but optional charges may be incurred for some sort of benefit. Talonkarrde (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Freemium is a model where the entire game, as far as levels and major content goes, is free to play but extra perks, area content, classes, equipment etc. (premium stuff) can (or must) be bought. I recently made a few changes to the list. WoW(!) and WAR were listed as freemium, which, in the case of WAR is an over statement (only levels 1-10 are FtP while 11-40 are PtP), and with WoW it's just a mystery since it has never been FtP.

I also changed DDO from FtP to freemium. I think it's a good example since you can actually reach max level and unlock all content for free, but doing so would require massive grinding and by design it's hard to reach the upper half of the levels without paying some cash.

It's obvious that there is a lot of confusion and a definition of freemium would be useful. I'm adding one now. Skrofler (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious where these definitions come from as I've been playing mmorpgs for years and I have never once heard people use these definitions. Pay to Play is self explanatory, and the definition here fits. What Wikipedia has listed as Freemium is what the vast majority of the gaming community simply calls "free to play." In face, this is the only place I've ever seen the word "Freemium." What you have listed as free to play is actually called "buy to play." Which makes MUCH more sense, considering the fact that games in which you buy the box are not in any way "free." I suggest that these categories be corrected as they are very confusing to anyone who would look at this chart to see whether a game is p2p, f2p, or b2p. 67.0.117.130 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that the article is talking about the subscription model, which doesn't (necessarily) include the purchase price of the game itself. Free-to-play, pay to play, and freemium all have well-sourced articles on Wikipedia, and this article links to them. If you can find reliable sources which contradict the article(s), or include additional terms, please discuss them here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

subscriber base column

A subscriber base column would be appropriate. --Johnny Bin (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll find all that (and more!) at the companion article, comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. This list is intentionally kept rather sparse. The comparison article is linked at the bottom, but I'm now thinking that it may be appropriate in the lede. Ideas? Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Skipped

Project Entropia is not listed here.

Neither is Fallen Sword. Tashabot 10:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Entropia Universe is not a CRPG, it is a virtual universe.

  Entropia Universe is a massively multiplayer online virtual universe

  . Fallen Sword has no article.--ZayZayEM 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Space Cowboy Online is not listed either. I know some people will say it's FPS, but you can barely even use the FPS option and it fits the criteria as far as i know. 71.248.148.179 (talk) 23:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the list if multiple reliable sources describe it as a MMORPG, and it has a Wikipedia article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tera (MMO Action RPG) is not listed: http://tera.enmasse.com/game-guide/what-is-tera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.36.236 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sims Online?

Why isnt this added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisoko7 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an RPG. Woodroar (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)