Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hutchidd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever^(talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game → MMORPGMMORPG – It is much easier to link to MMORPG. 14bauhr (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most reliable sources tend to spell out the term—at least the first time—and searches for "massively multiplayer online role-playing game" tend to give more scholarly sources than "MMORPG". Besides, if the issue is linkability, you can always link to MMORPG and it will redirect to this article. Woodroar (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as the Massively multiplayer online role-playing game name is more appropriate and understandable for any reader ~Amkgp ✉ 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "Ease of linking" is not a valid reason to move a topic, especially since you can already link that way as a redirect. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "It is much easier to link to" in the nomination gives the game away. Links are not here for editors' convenience. No evidence has been provided that "|MMORPG" is the common name. 94.21.219.127 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This is a good point. MMORPG is arguably the most common moniker. I wouldn't mind a move. Still, I slightly prefer the longer, more descriptive title. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge - April 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Electing to close this discussion as Not merged, as aside from the nominator, the result has been unanimous and the discussion has been open for two months now. At the very least, the result changing would require a significant sharp turn in the consensus to even reach a no consensus result. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

---

The fork looks like the result of some languages lacking a proper translation for the term. Every native translation of it should involve creating an acronym in the target language, since that expresses a fundamental aspect of internet culture plus the media genres which MMORPG'es actually base themselves on. Nira gliro (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. MMORPGs are a type of MMO. There are also Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter games, Massively multiplayer online real-time strategy games, and any kind of game where the server allows for hundreds or thousands of players. Reliable sources regularly cover those other genres, too. Woodroar (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither article mentions any notable much less real-time strategy games. Nira gliro (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter game includes a link to List of massively multiplayer online first-person shooter games, and List of massively multiplayer online first-person shooter games includes a link to List of massively multiplayer online real-time strategy games. Woodroar (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Woodroar already covered it. I get the sense that there some sort of right-great-wrongs at work here. This is English Wikipedia, so the articles reflect the English names for these genres and sub-genres. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There are MMOs that are not MMORPGs (MMOFPS, MMORTS, etc.). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone find one example where the term is mutually exclusive? Global Agenda for example is an MMORPG as well as MMOFPS, since the game takes a story-driven role-playing approach. Nira gliro (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

MMORPG.com is NOT a reliable website. Also, I think you can't call World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2 or Final Fantasy XIV as MMOFPS/MMORTS. Za9941 (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if an MMOG might have RPG elements, they're not necessarily MMORPGs. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Theres enough here to keep them separate.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Mobile MMORPGs, combat power, and progression design

Many mobile MMORPGs appear structurally different from older or PC-oriented MMORPGs. These mobile titles often look less like games centered on persistent-world exploration, player interaction, and shared social or economic activity, and more like games about repeatedly increasing a visible aggregate power value such as combat power, CP, battle power, or combat rating. The MMORPG-like world, multiplayer setting, quests, events, cooperation, and conflict remain, but the practical value of play often appears concentrated in increasing and competing over that number.

In older or PC-oriented MMORPGs, value can be distributed across exploration, incidental encounters with other players, community formation, party roles, cooperation and conflict, crafting, gathering, trading, and other forms of in-game economic activity. In the mobile free-to-play pattern I have in mind, those forms of value are often gathered around a unified combat-power value. Activities that appear as exploration, cooperation, competition, or events can become the presentation through which that value is increased, displayed, and competed over.

Several groups of sources seem relevant to this topic:

• Industry/report material: Google Play's 2022 MMORPG Genre Report lists mobile MMORPG elements such as autoplay, AFK farming, character progression, pay for progression, pay for convenience/time, pay for power, and gacha.

• Mobile-game research: Studies on mobile-game monetization discuss wait timers, progression gates, and payment to skip or accelerate progression. A study of popular Korean mobile games, including MMORPGs, discusses monetization and retention strategies such as time-gated progression, conflict-driven design, and social-interaction-based strategies.

• English-language reviews of mobile MMORPGs: reviews of titles such as Lineage 2: Revolution, MU Origin, Dragon Oath 3D, and Black Desert Mobile discuss combat power/combat rating, automation, power-growth loops, and the relationship between mobile MMORPG progression and older PC-oriented MMORPG forms.

• Chinese-language industry/game-media usage: Tencent Game Academy / GameRes materials discuss MMORPG development, commercialization, social systems, economic systems, and the practice of 卖数值 (“selling numerical power” or “selling stats”). Chinese game media also discuss “not selling numerical power” as a selling point or trend in recent MMO mobile games.

I would be interested in other editors' views on whether this pattern should be covered, and how it could be framed. チーズハムサンド (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi チーズハムサンド! A couple comments on this thread:

1. Unfortunately, none of the sources here are usable. Google Play (source 1) and Tencent Game Academy (8) are primary sources from game publishers/sellers, which generally indicates an inherent bias. The arXiv sources (2 and 3) are preprints that have not been through peer review or publication. The remaining sources are on our Video Game WikiProject's list of unreliable sources for a variety of reasons. The sources we're looking for are reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, like articles in peer-reviewed journals, trustworthy games journalism, newspapers, and so on. You can read more about game-specific sources at WP:GAMESOURCES.
2. Remember that AI/LLM-generated comments are not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:AITALK. LLMs are prone to mistakes, like hallucinating and choosing poor-quality sources. We want to hear what you have to say, not an LLM. You mentioned on your Talk page that English isn't your first language. That's fine, as long as you're able to read English well enough to understand, and write English well enough to be understood.

Woodroar (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The key point of my proposal is the perspective, not the sources or the writing style. If authoritative sources haven't yet addressed that perspective, then it probably doesn't ready for article text at this point. チーズハムサンド (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

References