One question, did you mean to sweep single player virtual world titles such as Skyrim into the defintion?  If not, then a better way to phrase it would be VWORPG to reflect the online component of the name and remain consistent with other conventions.

I agree, labels are helpful, myself I feel that GW2 has either refined or redefined the MMO space by creating what should probably be called a MMOARPG (Action) since they've more or less stripped out character progression/distinction to the point that everyone quite easily ends up more or less the same, much like a FPS.

Now, as far as features I think a VWRPG should have, I personally feel it has to have some sort of properly designed player conflict system.

I know, there will be people who argue that an all PVE system is fine, and I am not advocating that all virtual worlds must be lawless FFA, full loot games.

But they should really have some area for player conflict, a la EVE's 0.0 space, DAOC's frontiers perhaps, but I really think virtual worlds have to provide a place for players to compete against each other.

As someone else said, consequences should be a core feature.  It should hurt to lose, and therefore players should try very hard not to lose in the process of winning. 

Of course, this restricts one's ability to take wild risks, but that's how it should be, big risk should result sometimes in great rewards, but most times end up in failure.

Perhaps I favor VW's that are more realistic, and I suppose there are those who would prefer they don't come with the limitations of real life, so there is some lattitude in design here.  (for example, no need to program in bathroom mechanics into my games, I get enough of that in RL) 

But weight limits would be nice, bothers the heck out of me when characters can run around with a metric ton or two of gear and stuff, it really should be based on your character stats like in old school RPG's.

In the end, I think VW's must force (yes, I used that word) their players to make choices, and those choices must have consequences, both positive and negative.

What is the point of defining something so closely? What should the rest of the games do? Should they be labelled as "the rest" or is it just a matter of "fuck the rest"?

I can't help but imagine a bunch of kids building a treehouse and then deciding who should be invited.

No. I see no point using the term as OP describes it. Much of the points mentioned are vague and subjective.

Virtual Online World Role playing Game
(VOWRPG) - Don't forget the online part

Originally posted by Mellkor

Virtual Online World Role playing Game
(VOWRPG) - Don't forget the online part

+1

+1 to VWRPG as well.

Mainly because the term "MMO" has been beaten to a bloody pulp and it's being thrown around for the absolute dumbest things.  Like people calling Black Light Retribution an MMOFPS.  No... its just a regular f'n online FPS with the level/unlock system that every damn FPS has nowadays.  Browser based online RTS... MMORTS?  What?

So a new term without the "MMO" infront is a good change in my eyes...

Originally posted by Quirhid

 

What is the point of defining something so closely? What should the rest of the games do? Should they be labelled as "the rest" or is it just a matter of "fuck the rest"?

I can't help but imagine a bunch of kids building a treehouse and then deciding who should be invited.

No. I see no point using the term as OP describes it. Much of the points mentioned are vague and subjective.

Because there are so many variants of the term MMO and the original one, MMORPG has become to mean so many different things to so many people. (look at how often people argue what a "real" MMORPG is to them.

We already have fragmentation, in addition to the original, we've seen MMOFPS, (Planetside)  MMOCRPG (GW1), I'm arguing that GW2 is solidly defining the MMOARPG (action) so why not a term that more accurately describes the virtual world nature of some titles, especially since the traditional theme park MMORPG is continuing to move so far away from the VW concept and becoming more "game like" with every new incarnation.

BTW, the extra "contempt" you include in almost all of your posts does nothing to bolster your position.

OK, I thought you wanted to create a fork from what has already been establishd. My mistake. I see that you were simply trying to redifine the sub genre and come up with a valid title otther than "Sand Box". 

I have personally looked at the difference between what you called the Virtual World RPG. VS Theme Parks in a simpler way.

Are you trying to create a world or are you playing in someone else's?

Is the focus of your game on things that can effect others or is the focus on your own character alone? Of course the 2nd quesiton is not without overlap, but in temrs of the overall effect, Theme Parks don't really allow you to alter the environment  you play in so they tend to force you to focus on the one thing your can alter. Your Character.

I guess the ultimate question is what are you building and how?

Let me also offer up something for food for thought.

Let's look at 2 games that predate the traditional Theme Park as we now know it.

Anarchy Online. It's not considered a true Sand Box, but more of a hybrid. But It clearly has deep roots in Theme Park.

SWG was also a hybrid, but more on the Sand Box side with TP elements.

So let's look at it through your definitions.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quirhid
 

Because there are so many variants of the term MMO and the original one, MMORPG has become to mean so many different things to so many people. (look at how often people argue what a "real" MMORPG is to them.

We already have fragmentation, in addition to the original, we've seen MMOFPS, (Planetside)  MMOCRPG (GW1), I'm arguing that GW2 is solidly defining the MMOARPG (action) so why not a term that more accurately describes the virtual world nature of some titles, especially since the traditional theme park MMORPG is continuing to move so far away from the VW concept and becoming more "game like" with every new incarnation.

BTW, the extra "contempt" you include in almost all of your posts does nothing to bolster your position.

 

My contempt is meant to show. It is the most I can do without outright labeling him as something. And speaking of labelling he has had a huge obsession over labels and labelling for a long time now, and I do not approve the labelling the way he wants it. People label games too much as it is without looking into them more closely. It is as if they are looking for excuses not to like these games.

This whole thread has risen from the fact that OP sees spots whenever he thinks someone missuses the term MMORPG when he himself uses a very narrow and scewed definition of a MMORPG.

I think you have to keep the "MM" tho.

Something like MMOWPRG would be better. But, if the intent is to completly move away from MMORPG, then simply call it OWRPG. Lose the "V" because its redundant with the "O"... Online is virtual by default.

A split has to occur, thats for sure.

+1 to OP

The term MMORPG is fine and can stay as it was.

We should reather call the games that only pretend to be MMORPGs (or MMOs) what they are: SMOGs, small multiplayer online games. And I like to think about them as SMOG anyway. :)

Sorry, please continue. :)

Originally posted by Larsa

The term MMORPG is fine and can stay as it was.

We should reather call the games that only pretend to be MMORPGs (or MMOs) what they are: SMOGs, small multiplayer online games. And I like to think about them as SMOG anyway. :)

Sorry, please continue. :)

I actually agree with this in principle. But I want to be able to have a discussion without constantly having people derail about the definition of mmorpg. This is mostly about practicality.

Originally posted by Kyleran

One question, did you mean to sweep single player virtual world titles such as Skyrim into the defintion?  If not, then a better way to phrase it would be VWORPG to reflect the online component of the name and remain consistent with other conventions.

I agree, labels are helpful, myself I feel that GW2 has either refined or redefined the MMO space by creating what should probably be called a MMOARPG (Action) since they've more or less stripped out character progression/distinction to the point that everyone quite easily ends up more or less the same, much like a FPS.

 

VWO is fine with me. The specific letters don't matter so much as the idea.

Originally posted by Demogorgon

I think you have to keep the "MM" tho.

Something like MMOWPRG would be better. But, if the intent is to completly move away from MMORPG, then simply call it OWRPG. Lose the "V" because its redundant with the "O"... Online is virtual by default.

A split has to occur, thats for sure.

+1 to OP

Virtual is more applied to world. But I understand your point. World is definitely the most important idea to convey, alongside RPG.

Originally posted by Larsa

VWRPG?

The board of carmaker Volkswagen (in many countries known as VW) approves ... I don't think that inventing a new name will have any lasting effect on the industry. :)

Well although it won't change things all alone it has an effect. Change is a bunch of tiny decisions piled on top of one another.

Changing the industry is secondary to being able to discuss a specific type of games without people coming in and derailing about how coop rpgs are more popular and that most people consider them mmos. IN EVERY THREAD.

Originally posted by GeezerGamer

OK, I thought you wanted to create a fork from what has already been establishd. My mistake. I see that you were simply trying to redifine the sub genre and come up with a valid title otther than "Sand Box". 

I have personally looked at the difference between what you called the Virtual World RPG. VS Theme Parks in a simpler way.

Are you trying to create a world or are you playing in someone else's?

Is the focus of your game on things that can effect others or is the focus on your own character alone? Of course the 2nd quesiton is not without overlap, but in temrs of the overall effect, Theme Parks don't really allow you to alter the environment  you play in so they tend to force you to focus on the one thing your can alter. Your Character.

I guess the ultimate question is what are you building and how?

Not really. Sandbox is a loaded term and it also has a lot of splits on what it means. Is Skyrim a sandbox? Depends on who you ask. Also virtual world and sandbox are like 2 circles that are ALMOST aligned but not perfectly. They each have things the other doesn't.

Originally posted by Larsa

The term MMORPG is fine and can stay as it was.

We should reather call the games that only pretend to be MMORPGs (or MMOs) what they are: SMOGs, small multiplayer online games. And I like to think about them as SMOG anyway. :)

Sorry, please continue. :)

Originally posted by Quirhid

My contempt is meant to show. It is the most I can do without outright labeling him as something. And speaking of labelling he has had a huge obsession over labels and labelling for a long time now, and I do not approve the labelling the way he wants it. People label games too much as it is without looking into them more closely. It is as if they are looking for excuses not to like these games.

This whole thread has risen from the fact that OP sees spots whenever he thinks someone missuses the term MMORPG when he himself uses a very narrow and scewed definition of a MMORPG.

 

Labels allow us to avoid redefining the terms of the discussion EVERY time. I want a label where if someone uses it, I know they are talking about my favorite kind of game. As opposed to sandbox or mmorpg which has almost 0 descriptive power. MMO has been degraded to mean basically anything online with a large userbase.

Also I do not have a scewed definition of mmorpg. Scewed is not even a word...

I play those games that I don't think are mmorpgs just as much as you. I just hate being in a conversation and have someone come in and totally derail about something not at all related because we said mmorpg as part of the setting of the discussion.

Saying VWRPG is so much easier than listing 100 qualifications to define a specific kind of mmorpg in every god damn thread. Which you have to do, because people derail every single thread about vwrpgs if you use the term mmorpg.

Originally posted by RefMinor
For me a VWRPG term is needed because half the games released now are lobby based CORPGs but they have taken the name MMORPG. For me a virtual world can be themepark or sandbox, but it needs to be a world, eg vanilla wow was a fairly virtual world (instanced dungeons though) modern wow is much less so, SWTOR and Diablo not at all.

Basically this. Its just impossible to set the terms of a discussion because of how much mmorpg has expanded as a definition.

Honestly Quirhid should be happy. No more posts arguing over mmorpg, and if he sees VWRPG he knows that he has no interest in participating in our discussion.

Sorry for so many posts, I decided not to respond to 5 other ones since I realized I had already done so many.