Talk:List of text-based massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Theme

This theme seems to cause some confusion. there's a need of definition on:

browser-based MMORPG (which can be graphical or text-based)
MUD
MOO
Post by Post MMORPG (PBPRPG) - seemingly also called Online Text Based MMORPG (OTBRPG)
Turn Based MMORPG

--Waldir 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Some of these games have graphics-OGame appears to be nearly entirely graphical, and most of the games have minimal graphics. There is a large difference between one of the classic MUD-style games which usually have a telnet interface (and possibly a browser version) and browser based games. Also, some of these games, like CyberNations, hardly seem to belong in the MMO category any more then the vast majority of facebook games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.113.118 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funkitron Games

I'm not an expert on MMORPGs, but I don't think Scrabble Deluxe and Extreme Boggle fall into that category... Permanent Nubbeh 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with you on that one. --Ariad o ss 01:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those games MMORPGs? If not let's remove the link. --Waldir 23:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of Scrabble games, an amalgamation of Bingo and slots, Poker, Boggle, Mahjong, a dice game, and a stone-matching game. I've removed the link. Permanent Nubbeh 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way wouldn't you like to discuss the definitions of MMORPGs I listed above? --Waldir 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

I suggest renaming the list as List of text-based MMORPGs, to comply with the Wikipedia policies. -- ReyBrujo 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Waldir 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page. -- ReyBrujo 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages

I don't think it really makes sense to include non-English sites in an English Wikipedia article. Any opinions on this? --Ariad o ss 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't used as reference, or aren't extremely notable, they should not really be included. If they have a Wikipedia page in their native language, it may qualify to be include here, but it is not a sufficient proof, as critery may vary. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Merge this to the list of MMORPGs article? Tarinth 23:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting of MMORPG

Is it ok to post links to MMORPGs that we play? I want to know that it's ok before posting the link. --Heruur 04:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question about this. Is there a certain process to undergo to get an MMORPG added to the list? --69.142.169.194 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does my game count?

Hi everyone. I'm just wondering what the minimum player count and fan base is to be allowed to create an article - and subsequently into the exclusive MMORPG listings. I have my description all written out - just waiting for the time when Wikipedia decides to allow a small minority of people describe their game without it being called 'blatant advertising'. Thanks Azoundria 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB should tell you all you need to know. Your player count and fan base doesn't matter; it's all about the amount of third-party coverage of the game - if there are significant published works about the game (newspaper articles or academic essays or whatever) which are independent of the site itself, then it's notable enough to get its own Wikipedia article. --McGeddon 20:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I have for third party is a few fan compliments. How do I get published works and academic essays about it? Azoundria 09:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just be a successful game, whatever that means, and wait for newspapers or academics to start writing about it because of that success. You should also wait for someone else to create a Wikipedia article about your game, rather than creating one yourself. If your game really is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, it'll get coverage and someone creating an article for it in no time. --McGeddon 18:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Darkness

I think that belongs here. The site where its at is http://www.medievaldarkness.com LordSkane 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All games on this list still need to be notable and still need to be verifiable. If you can provide the sources for this, then make a stub article and then add it to this list. Marasmusine 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text based MMORPGs and MUDs

I think this page should probably include text-based MMORPGs and MUDs to resolve any problems there. It should also make sure games included fit the criteria of a Computer role-playing game, not other genres such as strategy wargames. All computer games, especially online ones contain some element of roleplay. Just because you play the role of Master-Chief doesn't make Halo 3 an RPG.--ZayZayEM 06:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is missing

Wikipedia is largest text-based MMORPG. --147.229.203.30 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing not-quite-notable games

Are we open to the possibility of listing games that don't quite meet the WP:GNG standards for having a stand-along article, for example a game that might only have one item of significant coverage instead of multiple (per Wikipedia:N#cite_note-3) This is in light of the recent Threshold AfD. Obviously such entries will still have to adhere to WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. If it's got an article, it's in. If it's got a section in another article, which is quite permissible under WP:NNC, I would still call that OK. My main objection to indiscriminate additions is that they are often added by completely NN games just starting out in an attempt to attract a following. Threshold doesn't seem to fit that bill at all. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the standard I usually go by is either 1. a reliable source or 2. an actual article (which should theoretically meet #1). I'd say that most "has a section in another article" games should also meet #1, but I'd argue we not include those which aren't ultimately sourced. Of course, any supporting reference in the other article should be added here as well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Threshold RPG

I propose removing Threshold RPG, not because of its current AfD, but because it does not meet the definition of massively multiplayer. This was discussed briefly at Talk:Threshold (online game)#MMORPG and RPG classification but I feel the best reason is that none of the sources at Threshold (online game) describe the game as an MMO, only a MUD. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a game doesn't need to have the players to be a MMORPG - it just needs to be capable to support them. MUDs with large game worlds (15000 custom rooms) can support around 500 to a 1000 players. Technically Utopia isn't a MMORPG and shouldn't be on the list. So either you allow all muds with large worlds, or you allow none of them. Easiest would be to rename the article List of massively multiplayer browser games and end the controversy. --Scandum (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got something like that already, although its requirement is "multiplayer" and not "massively multiplayer". I do agree, however, that capability is quite different from actual users, but there has to be a dividing line somewhere between MUD and MMORPG. I mean, Threshold has zero sources claiming that it is an MMO but all call it a MUD. It, along with every other game which fails to claim MMO status, should be removed in my opinion.

But if you're seriously suggesting the name change, I'd probably be for it (of course making my point moot), although a merge with List of multiplayer browser games would probably be more appropriate. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplayer browser games is pretty short, might be better to merge the listings. --Scandum (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a merge and name change. Might be a good opportunity to add more information and bring the list up to FL status. Fact is, we've not thrown a text-based RPG off the list recently for being too small, and Threshold would probably set a bad precedent--I agree with Scandum that the potential rather than the current logged in player list is more normative. Actually, I further agree that "text based" is the primary distinction in this article: If you can't play it with telnet, it shouldn't be on this page. Beyond that, whether it technically merits a "massively" label or not is small potatoes, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen on MMORPG meta sites, I agree potential rather than actual is the usual criterion. I'm still looking at this page and thinking that to include all notable MUDs on it would be faintly ridiculous, though. Not to toot my own horn or anything, but Chronology of MUDs is a much better list page, and this page would wind up being largely redundant with it. I'm really rather more in favor of cutting all the MUDs from here now that they have their own list page (which is in the See also of this page). Any thoughts? Am I crazy? —chaos5023 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enh, let's try it and see what happens. I ain't skeert of reversion. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing one

Battleknight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.78.155 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]