Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

World is not required for an MMO

123468

Comments

  • evolver1972evolver1972 Member Posts: 1,118

    This website is an MMO....

     

    Here's the (new) true definition of an MMO.  I decided to make one myself because everyone else is.

     

    In all seriousness, I consider an MMO to be a multiplayer game that requires you to be online to play it that can support hundreds of people, or more, simultaneously.  That's it. 

     

    However a company figures out how it works for them is there business.  For some, it may mean multiple servers.  Others may need some instancing.  Some may have worlds, some not.  Some may allow some soling, others not.  None of those things really affects whether it's an MMO or not.

    image

    You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???

    Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Quirhid
    To Loktofeit,Your definition is problematic because it would make even a chessboard a world; yet, I don't think most people perceive it as such. Is Snakes & ladders a world to you?You could argue that if the gamespace exists only when the player(s) is present that it is not a world. Some games actually do try to simulate a world where it "exists" and functions even without player presence.Now before someone jumps in and says "instanced games are not worlds", may I remind you that they usually have gameareas which are persisntent and which do exist even when they would be empty (atleast that is my understanding). We also perceive them as worlds while we play them, so clearly mimicing a living world is just as good as simulating a living world.But world, in MMORPG sense, is not required.

    Please define the term "world" as you are using it.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    If you look at the general consensus of the rest of the planet, a persistent world is an integral part of an MMO. A world is a persistent, shared space where players interact with each other. I think one of the important bits is that it would be possible for all the players in a world to interact with each other at the same time inside that virtual world.

    No particular numbers are listed to separate Massively Multiplayer Online games from Multiplayer Online games though. The gap from Multiplayer to Massively Multiplayer is removing the divisions between players in a virtual world. In D3 it's the difference between only some people running around in the first town together and the possibility of everyone being able to run around in the first town together. One is multiplayer, one is massively multiplayer.

    This is not at all what I was thinking earlier. My definition of MMO did not include a 'world' at all. However, the rest of the world we live in, with a few exceptions, considers it essential to the definition of the term. D3, CoD, etc. are out. They are Multiplayer Online games. Farmville is in. It has a shared world, with the possibility of all the players running around in one farm.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Quirhid
    To Loktofeit,

     

    Your definition is problematic because it would make even a chessboard a world; yet, I don't think most people perceive it as such. Is Snakes & ladders a world to you?

    You could argue that if the gamespace exists only when the player(s) is present that it is not a world. Some games actually do try to simulate a world where it "exists" and functions even without player presence.

    Now before someone jumps in and says "instanced games are not worlds", may I remind you that they usually have gameareas which are persisntent and which do exist even when they would be empty (atleast that is my understanding). We also perceive them as worlds while we play them, so clearly mimicing a living world is just as good as simulating a living world.

    But world, in MMORPG sense, is not required.



    Please define the term "world" as you are using it.

     

    +1  

    Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Paradigm68Paradigm68 Member UncommonPosts: 890
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Paradigm68
    As has been demonstrated here, all it takes to be an mmo is for the company making the game to call it an mmo. But that's not what we here are about, is it?  No, we're about good mmorpgs. And what it takes to be a good mmorpg, well... that is an entirely different discussion in which 'world' and 'community' play much larger roles.

    That is what you are about.

    I am about good GAMES. "World" and "community" should not over-take fun. They are not always on the opposite side .. but some of the older notions of what "community" means does.

    For example, some may think limiting a community to a server is a good thing. I think that is limiting. I would much rather have cross-server functionalities, so i can play with any friend, or any one i choose to.

    All that says to me is you dislike the devlopers breaking up your world and community arbitratily by the use of separate servers. So essentially you're making an argument for 'world' and 'community'.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,373

    The problem is you can split hairs indefinitely over what a MMORPG is, what a virtual world is, what a sandbox style game is, so it is necessary for people to provide a definition of what they mean by the terms.

    This very site uses the following defintions to determine what is a MMORPG or not. (though they bend the rules pretty far IMO)

    1. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
    2. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
    3. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
    4. The game must contain some form of advancement.

    Now, this defintion may not agree with others, which is inherently the issue here.  I think the highlighted line might invalidate the game used in the OP's example, but perhaps not I didn't read into it very far.

    Even trying to define what exactly is a virtual world is a slippery slope, because people start deciding what features it must have in order to be clasified as such, and you get debates about a particular title not being "enough" of a virtual world to be worthy of the title.

    The good news is provides endless fodder for forum debates like this one, which is all good in the end.

     

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,105
    Originally posted by Roxtarr
    I actually agree with the premise of the OP.  Sometimes unwritten 'rules' need to be broken.  I'd love to see more MMORPG break the traditional molds that are stagnating the genre.

    Same here

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    More from the internet, and history.

    The term MMO/MMOG started with games like Ultima Online and Meridian 59. The key, defining feature of the terms was having a persistent, shared virtual world. When more games were produced and the ideas for more games started to be discussed, the terms MMORPG, MMOFPS and MMORTS started being used. For a game to be an MMORPG, MMOFPS or MMORTS, it must first be an MMO. Sometimes the terms MMO and MMORPG are used to mean the same thing, which makes sense since they were both used to reference games the games Ultima Online and Meridian 59.

    So...a virtual world is a key, defining feature of an MMO. Without a virtual world, it's not an MMO. This isn't arbitrary though, because that virtual world has to be shared, and it has to be persistent.

    What is a virtual world? It's a space where the player's frame of reference exists. The player interacts with the virtual world to play the game. A player is "in" a virtual world. A game's lobby is probably the simplest virtual world possible.

    What does persistent mean? When the player leaves the virtual world, the world does not cease to exist and the virtual world is not put on hold. Things can continue to happen that virtual world. In Farmville, crops continue to grow when a player logs out. Farmville's world is persistent. In D3 and other lobby games, the lobby is not persistent. When the player logs out of their lobby, that lobby ceases to exist. The state of the lobby is saved for later, when the player logs back in.

    What does shared mean? Other players can visit the space in the virtual world that a player occupies or occupied. This is partly possible because of persistence. If a player logs out of Farmville, another player can visit their farm. The player's farm is shared. In WoW, another player B can visit the same vendor and player A, whether player A is logged in or not. The lobby in D3 is not shared, even when a player is logged in. Nobody can see player A's lobby except player A.

    So there you have it. Anyone who wishes to change the definition, or use their own, feel free. However, you must now do it with the full knowledge that the rest of the planet has already settled on a definition, and applied it consistently. You may also feel free to call out MMORPG.com when they misapply the term "MMO" or "MMOG" to a game where it does not actually apply.

    Quirhid is just wrong. To be an MMO, a game has to have a shared, persistent virtual world. It is the key defining feature of the term. That is, until such time as the commonly accepted definition gets changed.

    As near as I can tell, the word "massively" is just a marketing term. It sounded good or it started with a the letter M, so they used it.

    If you read all this, I am sorry. Blame Quirhid. It's their fault I even bothered looking this cr@p up.

    ** edit **
    Also, none of this is what I thought when I started reading this thread.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,741

    Indeed an open world is needed. As I writie this I am looking at an advert for a "Whimsical MMORPG", now I don't know the first think about this game. But it used MMO in the title, in fact its more proper abbreviation, MMORPG. That gives me and idea of what it is like and what it has to live up to.

    I am quite happy that older MMO's have been called sandbox or old school. Although they are not quite either of those things, indeed "old school" MMO's had a number of gaming systems we don't have now and due to this in certain areas they were more advanced.

    We have already lost the RPG, for most this just now implies a leveling sytem. Lets not loose the massive or the multiplayer, they are a standard to determine what kind of MMO we are talking about. Find new names for new types of games, that is what gaming has always done in the past.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Paradigm68
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
     

    All that says to me is you dislike the devlopers breaking up your world and community arbitratily by the use of separate servers. So essentially you're making an argument for 'world' and 'community'.

    It is more than that. I also don't want to be limited by time. If i want to play with a friend now .. i want to do it now .. not 15 min from now where i can fly/walk to where he is. A persistent world is in the way of that.

    A quick teleport, of course, will solve that problem.

    There is also the issue of cross-game communications.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Scot

    We have already lost the RPG, for most this just now implies a leveling sytem. Lets not loose the massive or the multiplayer, they are a standard to determine what kind of MMO we are talking about. Find new names for new types of games, that is what gaming has always done in the past.

    That is the classical mindset to hold onto old ideas. So what if we lose some of the old features. The question should be .. if that gives a better gaming experience. Nothing should be sacred.

    And you are not losing the word "massive" .. a persistent world is not the only way to involve large number of people. A chat room can. A AH can. Heck, even D3 can .. you just refuse to see new ideas.

     

  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    We need a new genre with a new community. There are people here arguing that COD, Diablo 3, and Facebook are MMOs. The OP is broadening the definition of MMORPG so much that the aconym can mean anything. Any word that means everything has lots its meaning and now means nothing. The OP is arguing in favor of nothings. Someone needs to write a history of MMORPGs. Maybe that will help explain how something so unique came to be something so generic.

    Could not have said it better myself!

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by madazz
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    We need a new genre with a new community. There are people here arguing that COD, Diablo 3, and Facebook are MMOs. The OP is broadening the definition of MMORPG so much that the aconym can mean anything. Any word that means everything has lots its meaning and now means nothing. The OP is arguing in favor of nothings. Someone needs to write a history of MMORPGs. Maybe that will help explain how something so unique came to be something so generic.

    Could not have said it better myself!

    Generic? You mean broader and cover more variations?

    Don't you agree COD is a much better game than many MMOs? If so, shouldn't you consider it when you are looking for entertainment at the same time you are considering some MMOs?

  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by madazz
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    We need a new genre with a new community. There are people here arguing that COD, Diablo 3, and Facebook are MMOs. The OP is broadening the definition of MMORPG so much that the aconym can mean anything. Any word that means everything has lots its meaning and now means nothing. The OP is arguing in favor of nothings. Someone needs to write a history of MMORPGs. Maybe that will help explain how something so unique came to be something so generic.

    Could not have said it better myself!

    Generic? You mean broader and cover more variations?

    Don't you agree COD is a much better game than many MMOs? If so, shouldn't you consider it when you are looking for entertainment at the same time you are considering some MMOs?

    I don't like COD. I think it is worse than quite a few MMO's that I enjoy off and on. If I want to look for an FPS, I will look for an FPS. I don't want to look up an MMO and find COD as its already classified under FPS.

  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Member UncommonPosts: 2,662
    I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,100
    Originally posted by Ramonski7
    I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.

    You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

    "any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

    So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Old guy says so too.  I don't agree with the regardless of a single world, but do agree with hundreds/thousands online in a single game even it is just lobby, text, mud...
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MagiknightMagiknight Member CommonPosts: 782
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    More from the internet, and history.

    The term MMO/MMOG started with games like Ultima Online and Meridian 59. The key, defining feature of the terms was having a persistent, shared virtual world. When more games were produced and the ideas for more games started to be discussed, the terms MMORPG, MMOFPS and MMORTS started being used. For a game to be an MMORPG, MMOFPS or MMORTS, it must first be an MMO. Sometimes the terms MMO and MMORPG are used to mean the same thing, which makes sense since they were both used to reference games the games Ultima Online and Meridian 59.

    So...a virtual world is a key, defining feature of an MMO. Without a virtual world, it's not an MMO. This isn't arbitrary though, because that virtual world has to be shared, and it has to be persistent.

    What is a virtual world? It's a space where the player's frame of reference exists. The player interacts with the virtual world to play the game. A player is "in" a virtual world. A game's lobby is probably the simplest virtual world possible.

    What does persistent mean? When the player leaves the virtual world, the world does not cease to exist and the virtual world is not put on hold. Things can continue to happen that virtual world. In Farmville, crops continue to grow when a player logs out. Farmville's world is persistent. In D3 and other lobby games, the lobby is not persistent. When the player logs out of their lobby, that lobby ceases to exist. The state of the lobby is saved for later, when the player logs back in.

    What does shared mean? Other players can visit the space in the virtual world that a player occupies or occupied. This is partly possible because of persistence. If a player logs out of Farmville, another player can visit their farm. The player's farm is shared. In WoW, another player B can visit the same vendor and player A, whether player A is logged in or not. The lobby in D3 is not shared, even when a player is logged in. Nobody can see player A's lobby except player A.

    So there you have it. Anyone who wishes to change the definition, or use their own, feel free. However, you must now do it with the full knowledge that the rest of the planet has already settled on a definition, and applied it consistently. You may also feel free to call out MMORPG.com when they misapply the term "MMO" or "MMOG" to a game where it does not actually apply.

    Quirhid is just wrong. To be an MMO, a game has to have a shared, persistent virtual world. It is the key defining feature of the term. That is, until such time as the commonly accepted definition gets changed.

    As near as I can tell, the word "massively" is just a marketing term. It sounded good or it started with a the letter M, so they used it.

    If you read all this, I am sorry. Blame Quirhid. It's their fault I even bothered looking this cr@p up.

    ** edit **
    Also, none of this is what I thought when I started reading this thread.

    thank you...

  • ZekiahZekiah Member UncommonPosts: 2,483

    This same/simlar argument gets played out every day here. Same argument, different title.

    If I had to guess, I'd say that the recent history of bad themeparks, and the backlash because of, the anti-sandbox crowd is getting concerned. More and more gamers are now realizing how limiting, boring and stale the themepark style (no-world, whatever term you want to use for the sake of arguing) really is.

    The momentum is shifting my friends. One by one, one by one... image

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • McGamerMcGamer Member UncommonPosts: 1,073
    Now if only this site's gamelist would adhere to the same common perception of what makes an mmo as well it would be great... Instead of pushing IP's that are nothing but glorified browser games and multiplayer deathmatches like MWO.
  • MagiknightMagiknight Member CommonPosts: 782
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    We have already lost the RPG, for most this just now implies a leveling sytem. Lets not loose the massive or the multiplayer, they are a standard to determine what kind of MMO we are talking about. Find new names for new types of games, that is what gaming has always done in the past.

    That is the classical mindset to hold onto old ideas. So what if we lose some of the old features. The question should be .. if that gives a better gaming experience. Nothing should be sacred.

    And you are not losing the word "massive" .. a persistent world is not the only way to involve large number of people. A chat room can. A AH can. Heck, even D3 can .. you just refuse to see new ideas.

     

    So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by Magiknight
     

    So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

    Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by madazz
    Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
    You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

    "any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

    So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!




    As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.

    The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • xeniarxeniar Member UncommonPosts: 805
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Magiknight
     

    So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?

    Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.

    a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.

    if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.

    instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces

     

    edit: But that is not what a MMO-player prefers. so we can only wait for the sanboxes now.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by madazz

    Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
    You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:

     

    "any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar

    So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!



    As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.

    The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.

     

    Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.

    And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.

Sign In or Register to comment.