Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Talk:Comparison of MMORPGs
Any discussion on the page: Comparison_of_MMORPGs can be posted here!
[Click here to Add a new discussion]

add more mmorpg

[edit]

the games puzzle pirate and A tale in the Desert should be included in this list.--Sp0 10:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget ShadowBane as an MMORPG 121.73.19.40 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Why not merge the information in this article with the List of MMORPGs? Tarinth 22:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not a list, but a comparison? Similar are there pages of lists and comparisons of Web Browsers and Linux Distributions. --[Svippong - Talk] 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we keep "Latest Update"?

[edit]

There may be different ideas about what an update is, is it a minor patch, or a large upgrade? Who knows! And why do we even care? The idea was originally to give an idea of how "often" it was updated. But perhaps we should remove that column and renamed "Alive?" to "Still updated regularly?". Any suggestions? --[Svippong - Talk] 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there isn't much point in this section. For starters, some MMOs update very frequently with small bugfixes, while others tend to lump patches together and release them as a single update, making any kind of comparison worthless. Either way, the updates happen far too often to be noteworthy. The page will almost certianly end up being out of date after a very short time.
Maybe the section should list the dates of the last large content expansion. City of Heroes has "Issues", Guild Wars has "campaigns", World of Warcraft has it's upcoming retail expansion. -Skorpus McGee 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Servers?

[edit]

Do 'servers' mean 'worlds' on the comparıson chart? Armanalp 12:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are the same. Server is just a more technical term. --Russoc4 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very interesting to find out what systems the servers themselves are running. Typically there are front-end servers that manage individual realms (running on Windows or Linux or BSD), and some back-end servers that typically manage a database (Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, etc). It seems to be very difficult to dig up this information though.

Preminum?

[edit]

Is preminum (as in "preminum account") an actual word, or is it a typo that should read "premium account"? – Autodidact 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha, that is just because I fail at English. Please bare with me. Of course it is premium! Thanks. *laughs self to death* --[Svippong - Talk] 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown online

[edit]

can someone finsh this section please?

Yep - you. I know nothing about toontown online at all, but if you do, feel free to add stuff in. It's what wikipedia is for, shurely. -Skorpus McGee 20:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Age of Camelot

[edit]

Added DAoC, i think the download vs retail option is wrong, so just fix it when you guys want.Avalean 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dollars or Pounds

[edit]

A few of the entries here are in pounds instead of dollars. Is there some reason for that, or did people just choose to put that in? And if there is no reason, should there be one for consistency's sake? FrozenPurpleCube 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the contributor who filled that out is from UK. But I would warn anyone wanting to fix this that it is not possible to just convert pounds into dollars because games usually use different exchange ratios. EVE for example is $14.95 and €14.95 which is not the same amount (I think the difference has to do with taxes). Shinhan 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, EVE currently costs $14.95 / €14.95 a month (the European cost is higher as VAT is included).
Antonio Carlos Porto 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Server" to "Shard"

[edit]

I changed the term "server" to "shard" in the statistics table. This seems to be more in line with the original intention. If someone wants to resurrect a column listing the exact number of servers in the underlying implementation, go ahead, but a "shards" column should likely remain since that's what most people are likely interested in. (It also seems fairly unlikely that it would be possible to maintain statistics on the actual physical hardware that runs a given MMORPG, as most MMORPG publishers aren't very willing to provide these details.) — Xenoveritas 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


((Server is often used the same as Shard, only for MMOs besides World of Warcraft?))

I reverted this because shard seems specific to a very short list of games. I believe "server" is the most neutral and broadly used term. Feel free to change it back if you dispute this claim. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 13:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we add Instanced column?

[edit]

I think that will be a good information, because instancing saves server work and ensures that there will never be competition (kill stealing, spawn camping) over resources such as mobs within the instance and that player characters experience minimum lag. — Antonio Carlos Porto 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need to define "instanced" first. Are we talking "contains instances" (like WoW, where dungeons are instanced but the world is not) or "completely instanced" (like Guild Wars)? Or both, in which case we'd need to come up with terms and explain them some place. Generally I'd say "go for it" but there needs to be agreement on what, exactly, the term means. — Xenoveritas 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is the catch, Its dificult to have a agreement on Instanced, and most of the new games have some instancing. But I suggest we stick with the meaning of dungeon (or the correlation of the game in question), just to inform the players that its general dificul to have itens stolen by other players. What about a vote? Antonio Carlos Porto 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the column in place of the GM column, as many MMORPGs have a policy against releasing that information and no MMORPG had any listed anyway. Currently it's "contains instances" with generic yes/no answers, although for Guild Wars I marked it "entire world." — Xenoveritas 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Server of EVE online

[edit]

EVE online indeed has a chinese server, but its a seperate server for mainland chinese players. There are laws in China with restrict the presence of International MMOs. CPP only did this for that reason, I think, and for legal reasons a local company holds the brand name and suport the game on the country. From what I know, outsiders can't access it.

But, of course, don't trust me: http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=320

Antonio Carlos Porto 02:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Story number of players

[edit]

Hmmmm I read on the Maple Story article that there are 50+ million subscriptions to the game which makes it far out rank any MMORPG out there in terms of numbers (considering the common perception, at least in the Western world, is that WoW is the most popular MMORPG at 8 million) - just wondering why Maple Story is listed as only having 2 million (I'm assuming this was taken only from the Global server perhaps rather than a sum of subscriptions from all servers?) --Rambutaan 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that maple story is far more bigger than 2 million subscriptions, that figure must just be of Maple story Global, which is the smallest maple story server, they should say the Korean one if anything (most popular server). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.52.20 (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says 5 million on http://maplestory.nexon.net/WZ.ASPX?PART=/Community/GM_Blog&mode=view&uid=25&bbsidx=7616&cat=26. Taking into consideration that Maple Story is a free game, and these numbers are most likely tracked via the number of account creations, the actual number of active players may be much smaller. hylian_loach (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a source saying that maple story has 50 million subscribers, should this article be changed to reflect that? Or is this article only reflecting the english speaking market (Global)? The souce is: http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/748/748331p1.html --Shiftingskye (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugested Move

[edit]

Its "Massive multiplayer online role-playing games" not "Massively multiplayer online role-playing games" isnt it? -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "massive" is an adjective, whereas "massively" is an adverb. Considering that "multiplayer" is the word being described and is also an adjective, using "massively" is the grammatically correct choice. Sp3ctre 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds wrong. Lets hold a vote, who wants massive, who wants massively? Turnni1 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.52.20 (talk) [reply]

I vote Massively. It just feels right(MasterApprintice (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

It has been suggested that the layout of this article trumps List of MMORPGs so should be the main 'list' article. It's a bit redundant having both. Marasmusine 17:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SharkD 10:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate for an article to be entitled "comparison of ...", if it provides comparisons it would be OR (or POV/UNDUE violation), and if just provides data for reader comparison it is a list of data, and should be labelled as such.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPG!!

[edit]

Another point is that this comparison/list contains several non-RPG MMOs, first of my list is Second Life, a virtual universe, not an online computer role-playing game.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww crap. I just added World War II Online before realizing the article is about RPGs. Maybe it should just be a comparison of all MMOs? Unless making a new article is preferable. --ZBrisk 23:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think comparison pages should be restricted on a genre basis. You can't really accurately compare Mario Bros. (platformer) with Counter Strike (FPS) or Sim City (sim builder) on the basis of stats alone.--ZayZayEM 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To find out if a game is an mmorpg or not go to www.mmorpg.com if its not there it isnt an mmorpg.

I think thats pointless, people will always add non- mmorpg's in the mmorpg page, I agree that it should be comparison of all MMOs, otherwise its just messy, 1 for non-rpg, 1 for rpg, 1 for mmorpg, 1 for non- mmo but rpg, 1 for mmo but not rpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.52.20 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Online

[edit]

UO is listed as having both a 2D and 3D engine. What does its 3D engine look like? I can't find it. SharkD (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Online - 25,000,000 Players?

[edit]

Ragnarok Online is listed as having 25 million players. It's reference is [1]. However, mmogchart.com does not have any information on Ragnarok Online. It does not state that Ragnarok has 25,000,000 players.hylian_loach (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) It was probably some jokester. I wouldn't worry about it. If you could find the real no. of players and post it on there that would be great! (MasterApprintice (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Population Tracking - Active Subscriptions vs. All registered accounts

[edit]

I've noticed that measurement of population for MMORPGs is not controlled. For instance, the World of Warcraft population excludes Trial Accounts and Expired Accounts, while most Free-to-Play (Runescape, Maple Story, Ragnarok) MMORPGs track all registered accounts.

This means that any Free-to-Play MMORPGs will have their population figures significantly higher than the actual active number of players, as opposed to Pay-to-Play MMORPGs (Star Wars Galaxies, Everquest, EVE, World of Warcraft, etc), which most likely include active subscriptions only.

I propose that we place an additional line of information under the population indicating whether the figure displayed includes inactive accounts, excludes inactive accounts, or information is unknown about the figure. This will push for a more accurate comparison of MMORPGs

--hylian_loach (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this argument is very weak. There's nothing telling us Blizzard does not include non-renewed accounts. --Leladax (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let me add, the whole venue of Blizzard 'numbers' may be an elaborate hoax for marketing purposes, there's no verification other than ..themselves. --Leladax (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is your point completely off-topic, but you also need to do more research. http://www.blizzard.com/us/press/080122.html quotes "The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired prepaid cards. Subscribers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules." The point of this comment is not to prove Blizzard's superiority over other MMORPGs, but to set up a proper ranking system distinguishing between different statistical tracking methods. --hylian_loach (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the hoax, that can be said for all the other MMORPGs. Other MMORPGs may also be using figures as a hoax. There is no way to prove or disprove the theory for Blizzard Corporation itself, and so it does not stand. If you are seriously claiming this however, we may as well delete this entire article since other sources may too be 'corrupt' as you claim. --hylian_loach (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this; we simply add a bracket under the population, saying (Actual active players may be lower)/(Status of figures unknown)/(Number of active subscriptions). This gives the reader an additional piece of information regarding the population. --hylian_loach (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guildwars

[edit]

The number of units sold hasn't been updated for more than 1 year now. I think the most recent figure is 5 million units sold, as per this: http://www.guildwars.com/events/press/releases/pressrelease-2008-02-26.php--WuIzMe (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "mmorpg.com" :
    • {{cite web | last = Woodcock | first = Bruce Sterling | title = MMOGCHART.COM | url=http://www.mmogchart.com/ | accessdate = 2007-01-05 }}
    • {{cite web | last = Woodcock | first = Bruce Sterling | title = MMOGCHART.COM | url=http://www.mmogchart.com/ | accessdate = 2008-05-05}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Rasa

[edit]

I am not myself intimately familiar with Tabula Rasa, but I do know that it's currently free-to-play and is shutting down in February. (Presumably, there are no more regular updates, since there's very little time until the servers are shut down)

Should it be removed from the list, or just marked as free with no updates? --BBM (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say keep it on, just to keep as a reference against other games.DocVM (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of warcraft real money for game advantages

[edit]

Does anyone else find that the wording of "Trading Cards can be purchased for a chance at an ingame code which can be used for otherwise unobtainable ingame items" implies that the items are extremely desirable/useful? They are in fact gimmick items which offer no advantages, just a little something to play with or make your character look prettier. Sheepe2004 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pressing the ram column button on minimal requirements... destroys the order of the table

[edit]

Pressing the ram column button on minimal requirements... destroys the order of the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.199.165.10 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates, additions and exclusions

[edit]

Just want to point out that I've started to reorganized the page by trying to get it close to Wiki standards.

First of, I removed the games that are NOT RPG in nature. There are many MMOGs out there, but some aren't comparable, and this is a comparison page, not a list of MMOGs.

Second, I added the original Lineage. For some reason, Lineage II was there, but not the original.

Third, I've updated most of the "last updated" sections, added some missing info (like full release dates), and included flags where appropriate.

I'm not done yet, obviously, as there are too many games listed and I didn't have the time to go through all of them in one visit here, but I thought I'd keep you people informed in advance. I'm just focusing on the info for now, but will add citations and sources as time allows. For the record, all my additions/changes were based on information straight from the official game sites, or their forums, and only on two occasions I referred to gaming review sites (basically to find the proper release date of a couple of games that lacked the exact date).

Feedback is appreciated. Thank you.

Raven-14 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need two articles?

[edit]

Why are two articles listing MMORPGs needed? What does List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games provide that this article doesn't? SharkD  Talk  08:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this article to be unnecessary. A good proportion of the column width details the dollar values of the game - which we shouldn't do (WP:NOPRICES policy). Publisher and release date should be merged into the other list. Further tables border on WP:NOT#STATS (Do we really need to compare which games have a customizable interface?) Therefore I propose a merge. Marasmusine (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of stuff would be better on Wikia or somewhere, would it not? SharkD  Talk  09:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy having the population references but the issue comes down to this page is rarely updated, poorly cited, terribly organized, and breaks multiple wikipedia rules and really really needs looked at and overhauled if its to survive. Right now it works more like a shopping catalog for MMOs than anything. Actually I put my vote towards removing it and keeping the relevant information on the MMO pages. - 75.150.195.86 (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support moving the content to Wikia and then deleting this article. SharkD  Talk  04:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for keeping it. What's the point in removal? Where and how shall people _easily_ find such a comparison? This is exactly the kind of content and approach I expect of wikipedia. Keep it here and over time it will hopefully improve more than data rot. cfi 8:50, 30 Jan 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.198.151.37 (talk)

Add request

[edit]

Seems like this article is missing an entry for Neverwinter (video game). DP76764 (Talk) 15:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV template without ongoing discussion per Template:POV instructions

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The information for user # on STO is incorrect

[edit]

The number isn't backed up by a citation, but whoever wrote it is definitely referencing this infographic: http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=1089211 They have misinterpreted the "3.2 million captains" section. A captain is a character in the game, not a user. The game has 3.2 million player characters, and a user can have more than one character. The number of registered users i certainly less than 3.2 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.88.130 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entropia Universe

[edit]

The game is mentioned in the list of MMORPGs, but no statistics are located in this comparative list. I've been hunting secondary sources to give someone a bit more skilled with tables the info they need to add it. Thus far, all I have found are MindArk press releases- which are a primary source.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games

[edit]

I am proposing that this article be merged into List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games.

This has been discussed multiple times before (here, here) but has never happened. This seems to be as a result of either no consensus reached at the time, or possibly just that nobody actually had the time, energy or motivation to actually carry out the merge. Regardless, both those discussions are old, the most recent comment in either of them being from 2012, and it's possible that policy or other circumstances have changed since, so let's look at them as they are now.

Reasons why I believe these should be merged:

1. Substantial duplication of information. Both articles contain information about the games' release dates, their setting/theme, their business model, etc. I don't believe that there is sufficient unique information to warrant two distinct articles.

2. Lack of maintenance. This article is clearly not being adequately maintained. This isn't usually a good argument for getting rid of an article, but I think it is of relevance here for a few reasons. First is the overlap between the pages; any argument for maintaining these as separate pages only makes sense if they are actually being maintained. Secondly, due to the nature of the content here, out-of-date information has a high probability of being not just incomplete but also being actively wrong and risking misinformation.

3.Lack of salvagable content. This article is a mess and would require a substantial rewrite to get anywhere near where it needs to be. Much of what's here, frankly, needs deleting, and what was left at the end would not warrant an article of its own.

So, what I am actually is that this article be blanked and redirected to List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games with its small minority of salvagable content being added at that page. Here is what I think should and should not be copied across.

  • Name: Already there
  • Creator: Useful information that should be copied.
  • Genre: Already there (as "setting")
  • Client sale method: I don't see the relevance of this and am not sure why it was here in the first place. Can be lost.
  • Client purchase price, monthly fee required and monthly subscription available: these are all summarised under "subscription model", which seems sufficient. The prices especially seem like they need to go as per WP:NOTDIR.
  • Release Date: Already there
  • Last update: There was discussion about getting rid of this as long ago as 2006. The problem stated there, which I agree with, is that it isn't obvious what constitutes an update. Is it a major expansion, such as Legion (World of Warcraft) or Path of Fire (Guild Wars 2)? Is it a large content patch? Is it any new content no matter how minor? Any client update? Any server update? It feels inherently impossible to complete this column in any meaningful way, so I believe it should be removed. In its place, we have the "status" column in the list article. This is woefully incomplete at present, but can be filled out to state which games are still actively being maintained or developed.
  • The entire statistics table. This is a mess, and I honestly believe that the entire thing is best deleted.
  • Number of players. Is it supposed to represent current number of players or number of players at the game's peak? Is it number of players or number of accounts? Number of active subscriptions? It seems entirely impossible to get reliably source information for this that actually compares like with like.
  • Number of shards/servers/worlds. This is increasingly becoming either irrelevant or meaningless. Not only do games regular add, delete or merge servers, but it is also increasingly unclear where the definitions should lie, given the existence of dynamic or cross-realm grouping and other similar things.I believe this can safely be removed.
  • Contains instances. This feels more as if it belongs in the "features" table, and I'll discuss it there.
  • Game engine type. This is already in the list article (as "graphics")
  • Source code. Since this is almost universally "no", the few exceptions can just be mentioned in the "notes" column of the list.
  • Windowable. Why is this relevant? Especially given that it's a feature offered by all but one game. If it has to stay it should go in the notes of the one exception, but I think it's too irrelevant to warrant even that.
  • Cutomisable UI/available mods. This night be worthwhile information that could be moved to the other list, combined into a single column. I am unsure and would appreciate other opinions. If I had to make the judgement call on my own, I'd say probably not, but I could go either way.
  • Feature set. This entire table seems to be subjective, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. For instance, there games which are listed as "no" for "contains instances" above which are then listed here as "yes" for "PVE group instances". What exactly constitutes an instance? What exactly constitutes a raid? We shouldn't be the ones deciding on the definitions, but at the same time, if we're sourcing from elsewhere, how do we ensure that we're comparing like with like? Other features such as "jumping" or "swimming" are even worse. Let's compare with another comparison style article, Comparison of web browsers. If I pick arbitrary columns from there, like text-to-speech support or SVG support, it's a simple matter to find other people outside of wikipedia talking about which browsers offer these features. On the other hand, a quick search doesn't find me anyone discussing which MMORPGs offer the ability to jump. This feature is included in the table only because whichever editor made the table decided that it should be. There are any number of features that could potentially be included in a table like this (crafting, achievements, character progrssion past level cap, etc.) but there's no indication given of why these features in particular that were chosen. This makes me think WP:SYNTH and -- especially combined with the lack of sources here -- makes me think that the entire table is unsalvagable and can safely be deleted.

Summary: I plan to ensure that all the games listed here are also listed at List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games. I then plan to also add a column ot the table of that list to include the games' developers, using the information from this article. Finally, I plan to blank this article and redirect it there. Lowercaserho (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. We don't need two articles, especially with so much overlap. I can agree with the above rationale for removing sections, but I would argue for something even simpler. How about a basic Game: max 20 word description. format and let readers get details from the actual article? After all, lists are supposed to guide readers to articles, right? They're not the place to stuff WP:GAMECRUFT and other WP:NOT content. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of any objections, I've gone ahead and added the titles from the comparisons page to the list page. Per Woodroar, I agree that the list page is also too crufty and in needs of trimming down, so I haven't added the deeloper information as I originally planned. The list clearly requires substantial cleanup and pruning, and while I hope to get to that at some point, I'm not going to hold off on finishing the blanking and redirecting here on account of that. Lowercaserho (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games&oldid=1200970874"