Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Article Milestones Date Process Result November 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 21, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed February 7, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed March 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife. It has been rated Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the the assessment scale.
	This article has been the subject of the MMOGCM, a collaborative effort to improve MMO and MMO-related articles. To see other past collaborations, please see our collaboration history page.
	This article is a selected article of WikiProject MMO for Wikipedia 1.0 through their Work via WikiProjects department.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
CVG Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by WikiProject Video games.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Baldur's Gate series Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Gamer buys virtual space station", BBC, 2005.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Virtual gamers reveal themselves", BBC, October 7, 2004.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Gamer buys $26,500 virtual land", BBC, December 17, 2004.

	To-do list:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Get to FA! Reference each paragraph. Probably need to focus on: The lead Common features History Private servers Non-corporative development Current trends Convert all references to their proper format (Template:Cite web could be useful here). Get rid of the Browser-based MMORPGs section and move content to the History of MMORPGs article, this article's History section, and the Development section.

edit

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Contents 1 GA update 1.1 GA Celebration 2 Next steps in the article 3 Removal of BBMMORPG Section 4 MapleStory is the most populated MMORPG right now, and of all time.

[edit] GA update

Has worked stalled? I notice a lot of debates over naming conventions and history sections on this page, so I'm tempted to "fail" (I hate that word in regard to GA, because it makes a user sound like they have more power than they do) the article for now so that everything can settle and work can eventually pick up. I normally hate the stability criterion, but it might be a good reason to postpone the GA several days beyond what the hold will allow. Your thoughts? — Deckiller 04:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussions and edits underway are relatively minor at this time, and simply a part of the ordinary evolution of an article. Tarinth 12:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We are pretty much done. I hate to bug you Deckill, but could you please go into more detail on what still needs to be done? Thanks! By the way, the requested move was completed in the end. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• In comparison with the other GAs, it looks fine. — Deckiller 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Celebration

Whooooo!!! We are finally here! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work, everyone. After the "Good article collaboration of the week" period is up, I'd suggest that the next step be to request a Peer Review as a prelude to going for Featured status. Tarinth 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Kudos to all that contributed to making it a better article :) --Rambutaan 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps in the article

Seems to be that WP:GACo is fairly inactive, but I have also submitted this article to WP:ACID and WP:CVG/PR to be worked on and peer reviewed. Hope this helps our goal of FA status! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was previously part of WP:ACID without much input aside from those who had already been working on the article. A peer review should be helpful... Frankly, I'm curious what is needed in the article to get it to FA that hasn't already been done. Tarinth 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in writing, nor MMORPGs, but here are my thoughts.

1. The entire Common features section needs to be turned into "good writing". In particular, the first sentence of each paragraph should be the "topic" of that paragraph. As it stands the content has no coherent organization, as the paragraphs were haphazardly composed by cutting and pasting the contents of a list.

2. The table of contents should reflect an intuitive organization. Only "common features", "history", and "development" are section titles one might expect in an article on a genre of video games; "economics", "psychology", and "browser-based <genre games>" are not. I don't know what to do with the first two offending sections, but the third should certainly be scrapped, and its content redistributed to History of MMORPGs and to other parts of this article, particularly "history" and "development".

• Economics and Psychology are fairly significant concepts within this genre and my preference would see them remain as-is; I don't think that articles on a particular video game genre need to be based on some sort of cookie-cutter template (if anything, the current article is an example of what most of the other genre articles should aspire to, and I'd enclourage them to have sections of information that are of special interest to a particular genre...) Browser-based MMORPGs could probably be reduced to a passing comment, and then have the content moved to the History article. Tarinth 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree with that. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3. If browser-based MMORPGs are, indeed, MMORPGs, then our "development" section is often wrong. For example, the section opens with the statement "In general, the cost of developing a commercial MMORPG title exceeds ten million dollars". This statement simply cannot be true given that some games (such as Urban Dead) are developed entirely by single persons. The entire section needs to be rewritten taking all MMOPRGs, not just the big-budget 3D ones, into account.

• The keyword there is "commercial" MMORPGs. While there is certainly a domain of experimental/academic development, as well as older games that required less resources in the past, the market for the subscribers of MMORPGs is predominantly the commercial games with significant budgets, as documented and referenced elsewhere in the article. If it is preferred, we could re-title the section "Commercial Development." Tarinth 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• With all respect, I really don't believe that would be adequate - MapleStory is certainly commercial, and it's sprite-based (definitely not 3D). Reviewing the rest of the section, though, it seems that most of the points are actually relevant to all MMORPGs, and not all that much needs changing... my bad... but still the section should acknowledge the development of other types of titles, including those that are browser-based or free-to-play or text-only. --Beefnut 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• The section talks about MMORPGs "in general" (it does not state that 3D is a characteristic of absolutely all games, merely the plurality of products). This is also reflected in our sources. MapleStory certainly has a lot of people playing it, but the typical way that commercial products are measured is through revenue. Are there any good sources that reveal MapleStory's revenue, how it compares to other major titles, and what percentage market share it has based on revenue? Until it can be shown that this is significant from a commercial standpoint I don't know that an argument can be made against the idea that 3D immersive MMOs currently dominate the commercial landscape (and thus deserve the focus of attention in a section on their development). Tarinth 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• One more thought--perhaps a section on "free" MMORPGs could be added, under development? I'm not sure the "independent" section is particularly meaningful (independent of what?) although a trend regarding alternative business models might be interesting and notable. Within the domain of such games, it could be mentioned that there are F2P games like MapleStory as well as browser-based Web games that are beginning to compete with the traditional 3D immersive MMORPG market (which currently commands the lion's share of the $1bn+ revenue mentioned in the lead paragraph). Tarinth 01:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

4. The article doesn't really even attempt to portray the wide varieties of games in the genre. I'm not sure how this could be best accomplished - maybe a new "Possible features" or "Subgenres" section. I believe this would be necessary in the name of the "complete" requirement of A-class articles. --Beefnut 07:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can you suggest a couple of specific examples that you feel aren't covered by the article? Perhaps that could put it in context, and help us come up with an idea for inclusion. Tarinth 13:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sub-genres? MMORPG is a sub-genre of MMO which is discussed in that article. The only sub-genre here is BBMMORPG (Browser-Based MMORPG). Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's my point. I wasn't sure whether he was referring to genres of worlds (science fictional, fantasic, superhero, etc.) or some type of gameplay or interface-based categorization. Tarinth 00:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I left it open, as I'm not sure which is the best way to do it. But surely some sort of in-depth categorization would help the article, right? There really are a huge variety of MMORPGs and the current article doesn't convey that. --Beefnut 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On the left hand side of this page, you will notice the to-do list. I have been updating it regularly crossing off what I have done. Right now we need referencing, old references in the proper format, and the BBMMORPG section merged with several other sections. Let's get to it! Also, the peer reviewing seems to have come to a halt. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of BBMMORPG Section

I was bold and deleted the entire BBMMORPG section. The section didn't have barely anything to merge to now it's gone. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tossed the removed content over to the new History article in case someone could use the titles as starting points for new content over there. --Beefnut 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think browser MMOs are worthy of mention somewhere in the article, although perhaps not with the amount of detail previously included. Note that there's also a rather sketchy article called Browser_games that might benefit from the inclusion of some of this content. Tarinth 01:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MapleStory is the most populated MMORPG right now, and of all time.

I believe the World of Warcraft statement/picture needs to be removed or updated, as it has never been true. 70.113.74.80 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between how free-to-play and pay-to-play MMORPGs are measured. Currently, WoW continues to be the largest game in terms of both revenue and active (paid) subscriptions. It may be helpful to comment on the (estimated) large number of players who play free MMOs, however. Tarinth 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)