Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

Featuring the Article

In order to feature the article, perhaps we should set a good goal. I suggest that we get 50 inline citations, and then attempt to be Featured.

This is a good suggestion. The last FaC cited a number of complaints which appear to have been addressed, but this now seems to be the major issue of concern in the new FaC. If everyone who is involved in this could find a few items to cite, that would be a great start. PS: Please sign talk comments.

Tarinth 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added around 20 references to the article and improved the content (I think). There's still a bunch of stuff that sounds like an opinion, or other areas that have a "cite needed" on them--since I'm not familiar with some of those areas, I haven't touched them yet. It would be nice if someone came up with a cite for them, or modified/removed the statement if it can't be supported.Tarinth 13:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

External link cleanup

I propose removal of these two links from the external links section, and then removal of the "cleanup required" notice on that section of the page. Remove: -- contains no notable information not already in Wikipedia and appears to exist only to garner AdSense revenue. -- appears to be a minor site that is mostly a forum with <1000 posts in its history.

Other sites are definitely significant sources of MMORPG information.

Tarinth 18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Items being deleted as proposed, without objection. Removing the Cleanup Required message. Tarinth 03:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The first MUD

Who created the first MUD? Was it Roy Mercer or Roy Trubshaw? --Beefnut 18:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Roy Trubshaw and Richard Bartle created the first MUD, if I remember correctly. --[[Caliah 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)]]


History of MMORPGs is a good article, but I don't think it should be a stand alone... Vint 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created that article out of the material from this one, as I believed that (though it's fascinating material) it wasn't quite appropriate for an overview article. My line of thought: what if some journalist or academic who had never played video games came to this article? He or she would want to read a concise description of this modern phenomena. Also, the message "this page is super long" that I got while editing was bugging me. The only downside I can see to doing this is that the main article loses some great pictures, but we can find a way to put them (or new pictures) back in. --Beefnut 20:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

History Should Stand Alone CMonkey111 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Just my two cents: I would think an academic or researcher is accustomed to articles of such length or greater. The problem here, I think, isn't that the history needs to be moved to a separate article. The history of the MMORPG is much too important, IMO, for certain crucial facts to be pushed into another page, as it were. In contrast the section on cheating seems a little lengthy to me. It should cover concerns about MMORPGs and not just cheating in particular IMO. {Caliah 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)}
I have to admit, now that History has been moved back, that I regret moving it away. I'm still not sure that knowing the history is necessary in order to understand modern MMORPGs, but I do know that the whole section is fascinating and that the article's pretty weak without it. I agree that someone ought to clean up (shorten and copyedit) the cheating section, and I think that the 4th part of the history section needs that treatment too. Maybe someone should make a to-do list? --Beefnut 00:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Noted that a lot of the terms in that section have their own articles and definitions already, so I'll give cleaning it up a shot if no-one minds. Though I think it aims to clarify too many points in one go for this article. {{Caliah 05:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)}}


How about a criticisms section? I didn't really see much in the article on those terms. A lot of people have played MMORPGs and came to despise them for various reasons: level grinding, monotony/triviality, no end goal, bugs, imbalances, cheats that have lasting effects to the game, general player behavior, time requirement, etc. -- Anon, April 2006

I guess some criticisms have their own sections like cheating. As for level grinding and monotony, more info can be found in Everquest. It is probable that these issues are addressed and resolved in other games. As for imbalances and bugs, I guess that wouldn't be addressed in a general way, more like in specific games. virtual crime is also mentioned. As for player behavior and other psychological factors, I don't know any published studies besides the usual anecdotes.--Janarius 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Social Impact

I would like to know more about the social impact these games have had on society. I am not too concerned about controversial isolated incidences, but rather the whole picture of the trends these games have created. What are the core demographics? Have these games factored into the social lives of their subscribers? Unlike consol games, main stream MMORPG’s require vast amounts of time and commitment. People have to put aside large chunks of prescheduled time dedicated towards advancement. This time spent rarely brings real world returns to the average American. Many western MMORPG players have allocated time away from education, career advancement and society in favor of these games. However, the Asian market has found a way to capitalize on virtual goods.

There are many political structures created in these games in the form of guilds and alliances. Many of these officers can be teenagers or college students with little management experience outside the game. I would like to see some sociological research done on this topic. I would like to see some numbers and statistics and theories by credible experts, not just media hype. Message boards for these web sites have also lead to many generalizations and assumptions. There is currently a big debate between MMORPG’s and whether the “casual gamer” can reasonably advance. Often, there is little that can be accomplished by randomly logging on, and leaving on the whim. The MMORPG community has even created new terminology. For example, “noob” is often used as a derogatory term. The word “nerf” is often used in reference to an ability that is too powerful and should be made weaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Xeal (talkcontribs) 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

The research you would like to see, if it existed, would definitely be very well represented on this page. However, I don't think it does (at present) exist, which is understandable when you consider that someone has to pay money for MMORPG research to be carried out. I do believe that all those statements you made are true, and that there is absolutely potential for very interesting research to be done on several MMORPG-related topics. It just hasn't been done yet. My recommendation to you would be to rewrite/expand the Academic Attention section of this article, outlining the various possible directions for fruitful academic MMORPG-related research. If you do that, then it's much more likely that someone will recognize that kind of research when they see it and then write about it here. --Beefnut 23:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a well known project investigating the social impact of MMORPGS called the Daedalus Project, located at Also, terms like "noob" and "nerf" were not necessarily created by the MMORPG community. It would be near impossible to determine the origin of these terms, so saying that they originated from the MMORPG community is just complete speculation. In my own gaming experience, the term "noob" was used frequently in old FPS games such as Quake1. I remember first hearing the term "nerf" in Diablo2, but it may have originated elsewhere. --JRavn 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to terms such as noob (or newb) and nerf, I can personally verify that they pre-date the current MMORPG community. Newb/Noob I have been seeing ever since I got onto MUSH/MUX's back in 1996. I suspect that it dates back, at least, to BBS's and I may even remember seeing it used in it's full form (newbie) back as far as 1994/95 while playing multi-BBS Barren Realms Elite, an old door game. Nerf I can personally date back to 1997/98 time frame while on BattleTech MUSH/MUX's. The term, on the BTech MU*s, was typically used as a synonym for cripple. The word itself originates from the product line named NERF, which is a line of foam products currently available from Hasbro. For more information, you can see the Wiki entry on it at I hope this information helps.--ShinoTenshi 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change (from Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game)

Hey editors, Habap requested that I post somethin' here to tell y'all why I decided to move the page. I'd checked the talk page, and saw that no discussion was there (didn't check the archives), and decided to move it, using the guidelines at Wikipedia:Use common names. There's no effing way one can argue that Massive(ly) Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game is more common than MMORPG, and hell, I don't even play the damn things. In any event, I was Bold and moved it (check my contribs or my move log for other stuff I've moved; it's become a recent obsession of mine to not have crappy page titles). So yeah, after checking the archives, it appears history is on my side, in that we don't have NASA at National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as much as that's the correct terminology (and, let's be honest here, NASA's a little more professional looking than an article on MMORPG). Awright, I've had my piece, if y'all want to argue with me, feel free; here or at my talk page. Happy editing, Mysekurity [m!] 03:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In the common features section it mentions that by their nature massively multiplayer games are online suggesting that the online bit is redundant - however it is possible to play massively multiplayer games in person - making the online bit more relevant to pen and paper gamers. I'm not quite sure how to fit this is or if it's even worth mentioning. snow 13:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good name change. I agree that MMORPG is better, ie, used more commonly than the whole-thing drawn out. Kopf1988 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

MMORPGs in the new millennium

I think its a bit off to name Ultima Online two as one of the next gen ones then say "two or three that didnt get completed" when UO2 was never released, I understand it was intended to be released and was a big deal, but unfortunatly for it, it is just one of the SEVERAL canceled mmos, therefore undeserving of any official recognitian over changing the part to "Three or four that didn't get completed"Dabigdeez 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a completely valid point. Still, I'd rather keep that information in (that UO2 was part of this generation of games), because the company's decision to cut it illustrates how people saw the MMORPG market to be saturating. It is only due to author's bias that UO2 is mentioned while the other ones are not, but it still does have a purpose there. If someone could research it, the way to complete that section would be to mention *all* of the cancelled games for that generation (I remember one in particular in which players controlled non-humanoid aliens, which looked fascinating) and then mention that some of these games were prematurely cut due to the perception of saturation in the market. --Beefnut 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As for UO2, either list ALL of the games that were canceled or list none would seem appropriate. Also Consider renaming scheme "of the new millennium" is far too broad a description when they mention later games considered to be in another generation. According to the info already presented in the article the generations go something like this.

1996-2001 First Generation of actual MMORPG
2001-2004 Second Generation (MMORPGs in the new millennium)
2004-Cur Third (current) Generation

The only real issue is exactly WHAT defines a new generation, and the only answer I can find is the Release of the next popular game (and its rivals). That is to say It started with M59,Realm,UO, and shortly after AC and EQ, The next generatioin occured when DAoC and AO were released, and the lastest started when WoW and EQ2 were released. I don't know if popularity is really an official means of generation definition, but it appears to be all we have to go by. Dabigdeez 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that all MMORPGs made before 2005 should be in one category. Some of the titles mentioned under "Modern MMORPGs" have aged rather quickly, and there are new titles soon to be released that have garnered immense interest in Asia, such as "Zera: Imperan Intrigue" and "Granado Espada," whose graphics and gameplay elements outstrip the old titles so far as to make their age apparent. Should we really keep this "modern MMORPG" category? I think the MMORPGs in the new millenium one was sufficient, and the "Modern" category seems to just set a precedent for inflating the article further on new MMOs (plus, in my opinion, City of Heroes did not greatly improve on graphics already in Eve Online and Lineage II as to make it the first of these modern MMORPGs. I believe it belongs in the same category as those two).
Maybe a general paragraph about new releases (only titles that have far-reaching impact) should be included rather than a whole separate category with the "Modern" heading. It just seems inappropriate when the games in question will be considered out of date or "old" pretty soon. Perhaps the headers you mentioned should be used, though like yourself I'm not sure as to what really defines the current generation.
One idea - why not use the technology used in creating a game and game features as markers as to how advanced a game is? Such as the graphics engine the game uses. I'm not so familiar with games so much as to know a lot about this aspect, but it seems more reliable to rate a game rather than relying solely on its release date or purely on how the graphics look. Caliah 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Guild Wars

We have flipped back and forth on a word in this line (only vs partly):

"In April 2005, Guild Wars achieved a successful launch, possibly only because it filled a new niche in MMORPGs - "


"In April 2005, Guild Wars achieved a successful launch, possibly partly because it filled a new niche in MMORPGs - "

I've changed it back to second the line. The first line does not sound like an authoritative encylopedia article, it sounds like someone's own personal bias that Guild Wars' only point of merit is that it has no fee (a comment accompianed by a fleeting comment about the game's main quest).

The paragraph gives an excellent description, further down, about many of the bold design changes made in the game; those points are not irrelevant. I don't think any of us should be trying to get too detailed about why the game has been successful, because ultimatley we don't know. This is supposed to be a encylcopeida, not an editorial. We can probably boil its success down to the fact that it is a high-quality game, with many original game mechanics, that has no subscrtion fees. Beyond that, we don't know, so our writing should reflect that.

It's important not to forget Guild Wars is a high-budget game, with well-known people heading the company, that has features aimed at attarcting a large number of people and making the game more accessible to players, as well as good graphics that run on slower machines. It had no major technical problems on launch and recieved great reviews. There are also likely many other factors that contributed to the game's success. That means we can't pigeon hole its success based solely on the fact that it may have filled a new "niche". There are many other factors as well.

Also, the discussion hasn't come up yet, but if it does Guild Wars should most defaintley be included in this article, even if the developers market their game differently. The gameplay in Guild Wars is different, but still closest to other MMORPGs even if it goes about it in a different way.

Drdestiny77 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I couldn't figure out which version of the line was superior, I threw it out and rewrote the paragraph, since it was pretty bad anyway. I agree with all of your points and I think I managed to put them all into the new paragraph, which describes *why* GW is significant as succinctly as possible. --Beefnut 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the Guild wars paragraph; I think its pretty good.

Drdestiny77 22:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only a thought, however contains articles and information that is updated daily on Massive Multiplayer online role playing games, and the technology associated with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Guild Wars is definitely an MM game, and it's an RPG...But it has the distinction of being a competitive/strategic game as well. Perhaps this is a niche. However, Guild Wars has sold 2 million units worldwide, which also makes it one of the highest-selling MMORPGs to date. This challenges the suggestion that it is a "niche" player; I'd instead suggest that it is a major MMORPG that occupies an emerging segment of competition-oriented MMORPGs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
Guild Wars is definitely NOT a Massively Multiplayer game- the design dictates the genre of the game, and by design, GW is not Massively Multiplayer. It is an OCG- online computer game. I cannot run into other players while roaming the game world freely, I only can interact with others in the virtual lobbies (towns). Also, the design does not require the same level of infrastructure that is mandatory in an MMGS, which results in the reason no fee is needed. Any true MMGS cannot be sustained for an indefinite length of time sans monthly fee. It is a design issue, period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Door Game

I've removed this new section, and the links (which just go to some game reviews) because I don't see how Door Games did contribute (if at all) to the genre. Though I see how these games contained "elements" loosely connected to modern MMORPGs, one could say the same for previous paper or board games. It's also impossible to believe that these Door Games had significant influence on anything given that "Door Game" doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page. To the author: if you really believe that this is relevant information, please repost it with citations. --Beefnut 03:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Door Games certanly were an early form of networked gaming, but they aren't really any more relevant to MMORPGs than, say, Modem Wars was.

In regards to door games, there is actually a direct link between door games and browser-based MMORPGs. Barren Realms Elite, an old door game, was a game that could link more than 250 BBS's together to compete as teams against one another on a BBS vs. BBS basis, or, in some cases, some BBS's joined together in larger alliances. The largest network ever created for Barren Realms Elite was an international network including BBS's from US, Canada, UK, and Australia at the very least. At it's prime, this network consisted of more than 150 BBS's and I believe, at one point, it had exceeded the 200 mark. Even at 150 BBS's, the player base would have exceeded 3500 players. The person who made Barren Realms Elite then went to create a game called Earth 2025, a browser-based MMORPG that is still active to this day. Earth 2025 went online December 1996 and was the first browser-based MMORPG to exist. This information is referenced at For more information on Barren Realms Elite, you can see it's Wiki reference page at Hope this helps clear up where the connection comes from.--ShinoTenshi 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Uru Live

Uru Live is currently unpublished, and so does not deserve mention in "History", and it has been removed as advertising. When it is published, it still won't be notable for being noncombat (see A Tale in the Desert), nor for relying on puzzle-solving (see Puzzle Pirates), nor for featuring a continually-expanding universe (see any MMORPG). --Beefnut 23:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Uru Live currently sort of isn't (see Uru article for details), and in any case would be more a kind of MMOAG ;-) Shinobu 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Daedalus Project

Why isn't there a Wiki on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puffles (talkcontribs) .

Because Mr. Yee didn't implement it as a Wiki. Or perhaps you're asking why there isn't a Wikipedia article on it, and that would be because no one has written one yet. Powers 12:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Does anybody actually roleplay on MMORPGs, cause I've sure never seen anybody? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Depending on what MMORPG's you've tried, you're not looking hard enough. Powers 00:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There are role-playing shards/servers, -and- clans on many commercial MMORPGs, including FFXI and WoW. Some games set aside official RP servers while others, like Lineage 2, go so far as to ignore the roleplaying aspect, so players are left to find like-minded people via its community instead. Still, role-playing appears to take a back-seat to PVP and other forms of player interaction. -Caliah 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Private Servers

"Many gamers in China feel the companies that developed MMORPGs purposefully made the leveling progress advance slowly so more money could be made off the gamers."

Having played WoW for a couple of months now, I can attest to that. And the game experience does suffer from it. -- Nils Jeppe 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is your point here? Perhaps this could be removed from the talk page? -- Sirius81 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Independent Development

I would like to add a sentence with a link to Multiverse Network, which seems relevant because the company is specifically targeting its offering at independent developers. The comment in that section said to inquire here first. Well? -- -- Rand McKinney 17 August 2006

Thanks for followin' the protocol, but that message is really aimed at new game projects (which are added really just for purposes of advertising). This information seems more significant and certainly has a place in that section. --Beefnut 23:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was up in the air about it, as it might prompt us to put references in for every MMORPG company. I'm not sure because it's goal of helping independents does make it different. --Habap 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is worth adding Starport: Galactic Empires to the list of well established independent MMOs. The game has an active wikipedia entry, a large fan base and has been out of beta for 3 years. It was also one of the first games to use a 'micropayment' business model to achieve success.

Current trends

I've reverted an essay that was added to the "current trends" section. It was mostly a POV option piece, and I don't see it as salvagable content. --Bob Mellish 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of deleting the section that stated "creating a hack/slash game would be financial suicide." That is a fitting example World of Warcraft, which has millions of subscribers. It is apparent that the genre isn't going to move in a linear fashion as far as complexity. There will always, in my opinion, be MMORPGs that are dumbed down and make lots of money.

External links submission:

Please consider for inclusion in the external links section of the MMORPG article. MMOz covers all aspects of MMORPG gaming, including previews, reviews, interviews, industry news and development topics. MMOz offers comprehensive daily updates highlighting stories and discussions from various sources: official game sites, gaming news sites, fan sites, developer blogs and player blogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanderson (talkcontribs) .

Lots of sites do all that. Is there something that sets MMOz apart? Does it have significant features that no other site does (like Stratics' nigh-monthly House of Commons chats with development teams)? Does it garner significant third-party references? Powers T 18:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The three main things that set MMOz apart from similar sites are: 1) It is currently the most comprehensive regularly updated guide to MMORPG coverage in one place. You may be able to get similar coverage by visiting a combination of different sites, but each of those singly will only give you a part of the picture, a fraction of the news links found on MMOz. 2) Broader coverage of developer and player blogs and academic research than can be found on other sites. Most other MMORPG news sites focus mainly on official industry publicity, such as interviews, press releases and patch news. MMOz gives an equal weight to unofficial community coverage of specific titles and the MMORPG genre in general, so you get more sides to the story (the official side, the unofficial developer views, player/fan views and scholarly discussion). 3) Direct community involvement in selecting and posting links and stories. While other similar sites have a centralized editorial staff, MMOz allows all members to contribute and post stories to the main site and game portals.
MMOz is recognized as a fan site and media outlet by a growing number of developers and publishers. MMOz exclusive features have been linked on respected gaming sites around the world (and in various foreign languages).--Vanderson 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
MMOZ is far from the most comprehensive MMOG site. It doesn't hold a candle to for instance which produces 75+ new MMOG informational articles a month while covering dozens of industry stories a day. That said the external links are pretty much a disgrace. MMOGChart and Nick Yee should be there, but without WarCry, Stratics and TenTonHammer, the largest and most reputable MMOG sites, it is doing a disservice to readers.

Summary paragraph discussion

I've reverted the summary paragraph back to the one that existed on Sep. 12, before Electrawn's revision. Here are the two versions, old one first:

A Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) is a type of online computer role-playing game (RPG) in which a large number
of players interact with one another in a virtual world. As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character
(traditionally in a fantasy setting) and take control over most of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from 
single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher,
which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.
A Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG) is a computer role-playing game in which a large number of
players interact via the Internet with one another in realtime. MMORPGs may be distinguished from single-player
or small multi-player RPGs by use of a persistent world which continues to change while the player is away from the game.

Here is why I believe the first paragraph is better:

1. MMORPGs do not necessarily need to be played over the Internet. Though pre-internet games were very arguably not "massive", they still fit the genre, and I just don't see any reason to narrow down the definition.

2. The virtual world is an important concept.

3. Not all MMORPGs are actually played in real-time.

4. The bit about how MMORPGs are a subset of RPGs is extremely relevant.

5. MMORPG's *are* different from other RPGs because of the persistent world. (There's no "may be" about it.)

6. The small note about publishers usually hosting the world is important, relevant information.

7. "Exist and evolve" is much more descriptive (and accurate!) than "change".

Feel free to challenge this! -Beefnut 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the old version is better, but I must challenge your assertion about "pre-Internet" games. I'm not sure how you can have anything approaching massive without the Internet. Powers T 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[19 Sept 06] Early networks like CompuServe, AOL, etc. had hosted environments that allowed for thousands of concurrent users. That qualifies as massive. In fact, one way to look at the emergence of the Internet as a homogeneous entity is when a lot of these disparate networks and online services began to interopate. The Internet is really nothing more than TCP/IP and the domain name system; neither of those technology standards should be a test for massively-multiplayerness. I think the first paragraph is more accurate. However, I'd remove the extraneous sentence about MMORPGs being typically fantasy, since neither MM or RPG are specific to a particular genre and there has been significant expansion of MMORPGs in other genres (examples: SWG, AO, Matrix, etc.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
You're right, I forgot that the old networks weren't integrated over the 'Net. However, I think it's still accurate to say that currently MMOs are played over the Internet. =) Powers T 13:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


changes made by: 15:59, 7 October 2006

on the main article looks like an ad.

This happens pretty often. If it doesn't add useful information, revert it. --Beefnut 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The first browser-based MMORPG

I am not sure on the etiquette for modifying a Wiki entry, but I would like to provide some information for how BBS door games made the transition from door game to browser-based MMORPG. The majority of the information can be found in an entry on this page labelled 'Door Games'. In short, Barren Realms Elite (see was a door game that was capable of linking up to 255 BBS's together as teams. The creator of BRE went on to create the first browser-based MMORPG, named Earth: 2025. A Wiki forth Earth: 2025 can be found at Another reference source for some of this information is

I wish to respect the author of this article and not go changing it around on them, but feel that the above information would be useful. If nothing else, the articles states that 'One of the earliest examples of a browser-based MMORPG is Archmage, which dates back to early 1999.' If nothing else, this information should be updated to include the above reference, as it provides a reference that is more than two years older than the current reference.--ShinoTenshi 13:53, 20 October, 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD. =) The worst that can happen is you get reverted. =) Powers T 02:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure that the word link avatar should point to the definition as it refers to the Hindu religion. Perhaps a disambiguation would be appropriate? Just a thought... Patris Magnus 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, changed the link to Avatar (icon) as this one seems to be closest to what we mean? -- Sirius81 13:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

History, commercial

MUD, the original game was commercial charging a fee to play. This article states differently. PR Baram 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If so, please modify the article on MUD to state that. Currently, it does not indicate that MUD was pay-to-play. --Habap 11:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That's because the original MUD wasn't acquired by Compuserve and turned pay to play until 1985. Ehheh 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)