Diablo 3, WOT, and other games. In fact, even a laddle, or a ranking can be massively interactive.
And this thread is not about innovation, but the different kind of interactions.And you are certainly right that tripple A MMORPG is expensive. But perhaps the innovation can come in other types of online games. And lastly, innovation is not the only thing that makes a game fun.
Dead Space 2 is fun. Bioshock 2 is fun .. and there are very little innovation in those games.
I agree. Innovation isn't necessary for a game to be fun. But this genre is suffering from a serious case of stagnation. Ladders etc. aren't going to save it though -- every game with an online mode does those things, but they're not MMOs. This is one of my longstanding beefs with the state of MMOs: they expect players to pay (via subs or otherwise) for features that are standard in other types of games.
I don't think the problem is lack of interactivity though. It's lack of persistance. In an MMO, it's not enough to include things like trade and leader boards. They have to be consequential to the broader game. Without persistance, the genre will be dead within ten years. The trick is pulling this off in a way that's meaningful, while still being at least moderately accessible.
That'll take innovation, if it can be done at all.
Using old ideas like persistency (which dated back to UO) is not innovation. YOu can argue that may be a "good" thing . .but innovation it is not.
Now going the OTHER way is innovation because it is new. May be we need a totally new gaming style .. like Marvel Heroes calling itself a MMO action RPG. Or a MOBA . which is obviously fairly new.
And persistency does not have to be in everything. Diablo series have character persistencies, and no world persistencies and it is a huge hit. Ten years is a long time .. if the genre is dead in 10 years, i am sure there are other stuff to do.
Using old ideas like persistency (which dated back to UO) is not innovation. YOu can argue that may be a "good" thing . .but innovation it is not.
Now going the OTHER way is innovation because it is new. May be we need a totally new gaming style .. like Marvel Heroes calling itself a MMO action RPG. Or a MOBA . which is obviously fairly new.
And persistency does not have to be in everything. Diablo series have character persistencies, and no world persistencies and it is a huge hit. Ten years is a long time .. if the genre is dead in 10 years, i am sure there are other stuff to do.
It's an old idea, but one that's never reached its full potential. It's like putting a man on Mars: people have been talking about it for a hundred years, but no one has managed to pull it off. Innovation is needed in the execution, not the conception.
It didn't start with UO either -- UO just proved that graphical MUDs could be commercially viable. Of all the later games, only EvE and pre-NGE SWG understood why people play MMOs. The problem with EvE, though, is that the simulation crowded out most of the other things that make games fun. The title that will rehabilitate the genre will take what CCP has achieved, and find a way to make it as accessible as early WoW. No one has ever done that before.
And no, persistence is not needed in every kind of game. That was never what I was saying. It's only essential in MMOs -- it's the defining quality of the genre, despite developers spending the last 8 years finding ways to eliminate it. The thing that made MMOs like UO or EvE special is that events are unfolding even when you're not around: they're not just games you play, they're places you visit. Everything else is just an overpriced ARPG.
The thing that people are missing when they talk about the death of the subscription model is not that consumers don't want to pay subs, it's that the latest generation of games aren't worth it. Battlegrounds and instanced co-op PvE are, in substance, no different from the kind of multiplayer offered free by pretty much every other type of game.
Compare SWTOR to Mass Effect 3. Both games let you play through a single-player story with lots of voice acting, cut scenes, and straight corridors. Both games have non-persistent multiplayer modes that are, for the most part, entirely separate from the single-player experience. ME3 included it in the price of the box, where SWTOR expected you to pay in installments.
Again, I'm not saying all games need persistence. I get what you've been saying, but I think what you're looking for is Xbox Live, not an MMO.
Using old ideas like persistency (which dated back to UO) is not innovation. YOu can argue that may be a "good" thing . .but innovation it is not.
Now going the OTHER way is innovation because it is new. May be we need a totally new gaming style .. like Marvel Heroes calling itself a MMO action RPG. Or a MOBA . which is obviously fairly new.
And persistency does not have to be in everything. Diablo series have character persistencies, and no world persistencies and it is a huge hit. Ten years is a long time .. if the genre is dead in 10 years, i am sure there are other stuff to do.
It's an old idea, but one that's never reached its full potential. It's like putting a man on Mars: people have been talking about it for a hundred years, but no one has managed to pull it off. Innovation is needed in the execution, not the conception.
It didn't start with UO either -- UO just proved that graphical MUDs could be commercially viable. Of all the later games, only EvE and pre-NGE SWG understood why people play MMOs. The problem with EvE, though, is that the simulation crowded out most of the other things that make games fun. The title that will rehabilitate the genre will take what CCP has achieved, and find a way to make it as accessible as early WoW. No one has ever done that before.
And no, persistence is not needed in every kind of game. That was never what I was saying. It's only essential in MMOs -- it's the defining quality of the genre, despite developers spending the last 8 years finding ways to eliminate it. The thing that made MMOs like UO or EvE special is that events are unfolding even when you're not around: they're not just games you play, they're places you visit. Everything else is just an overpriced ARPG.
The thing that people are missing when they talk about the death of the subscription model is not that consumers don't want to pay subs, it's that the latest generation of games aren't worth it. Battlegrounds and instanced co-op PvE are, in substance, no different from the kind of multiplayer offered free by pretty much every other type of game.
Compare SWTOR to Mass Effect 3. Both games let you play through a single-player story with lots of voice acting, cut scenes, and straight corridors. Both games have non-persistent multiplayer modes that are, for the most part, entirely separate from the single-player experience. ME3 included it in the price of the box, where SWTOR expected you to pay in installments.
Again, I'm not saying all games need persistence. I get what you've been saying, but I think what you're looking for is Xbox Live, not an MMO.
Using old ideas like persistency (which dated back to UO) is not innovation. YOu can argue that may be a "good" thing . .but innovation it is not.
Now going the OTHER way is innovation because it is new. May be we need a totally new gaming style .. like Marvel Heroes calling itself a MMO action RPG. Or a MOBA . which is obviously fairly new.
And persistency does not have to be in everything. Diablo series have character persistencies, and no world persistencies and it is a huge hit. Ten years is a long time .. if the genre is dead in 10 years, i am sure there are other stuff to do.
It's an old idea, but one that's never reached its full potential. It's like putting a man on Mars: people have been talking about it for a hundred years, but no one has managed to pull it off. Innovation is needed in the execution, not the conception.
What do you mean no one is pulling it off? There are plenty of persistencies in many games from UO, to WOW, to Diablo 3. Do you mean no one has make it fun? That is also not true. Persistent characters and progressions are fun in Diablo and WOW.
The persistent world is fun in PS2.
And no, persistence is not needed in every kind of game. That was never what I was saying. It's only essential in MMOs -- it's the defining quality of the genre, despite developers spending the last 8 years finding ways to eliminate it. The thing that made MMOs like UO or EvE special is that events are unfolding even when you're not around: they're not just games you play, they're places you visit. Everything else is just an overpriced ARPG.
You mean underpriced ARPG? Diablo 3 costs $60. Many MMOs are free. I wouldn't mind playing lower price MMOS as ARPGs.
The thing that people are missing when they talk about the death of the subscription model is not that consumers don't want to pay subs, it's that the latest generation of games aren't worth it. Battlegrounds and instanced co-op PvE are, in substance, no different from the kind of multiplayer offered free by pretty much every other type of game.
You don't now that. I don't want subs when there are free competition out there. It is really about the competitive landscape.
Compare SWTOR to Mass Effect 3. Both games let you play through a single-player story with lots of voice acting, cut scenes, and straight corridors. Both games have non-persistent multiplayer modes that are, for the most part, entirely separate from the single-player experience. ME3 included it in the price of the box, where SWTOR expected you to pay in installments.
The TOR story is free now.
Again, I'm not saying all games need persistence. I get what you've been saying, but I think what you're looking for is Xbox Live, not an MMO.
Depends on how MMO is defined. I do like DDO, PS2, DCUO, STO and a few other games categorized by teh industry as MMOs. I played UO in beta, and EQ for a year from scratch and found them to be horrible games. Modern MMOs are much more fun (to me).
Been forever since I played RS, didn't know they had all that. I did see group harvesting in Vanguard tho.
No, I'm looking forward to the group crafting instead of just harvesting. Two people put items in, they each have their individual bonus and 2 items come out. It takes longer to craft but makes more items.
One day there will probably be a spin offered like the gameshow take it all. PVP crafting... we both craft something... you each have the choice to keep the item or try to take both from the other person. If both people choose to keep theirs, each person gets a copy of the item. If one person chooses to take both and the other person chooses to keep theirs then they get both. Then if both people choose to keep both, they both get nothing. Ok, so I watched that show the other day and couldn't stop thinking of how to put it into a game. Now, I found a use. Someone run with it... get it.
Istaria has had public crafting since 2003. Their only dungeon was dug out by the players.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I get that it bothers you that some of us here have very distinct lines on what we consider an "MMORPG" and you disagree and/or just like arguing points for entertainment but this is a stretch. Yes, a good auction/trade system is a great aspect of an MMORPG and can be designed for more player interaction. I agree that the system itself could be done a lot better than a lot of MMOs do now. By itself? What is the purpose of the item? If there is no combat what are the items needed for? You said SIMs which is great if it was persistently shared with others. Trading between people but still having your own world where you never see them? IMO that isn't an MMO.
No matter how many times or angles you try to slice it Massively Multiplayer Online means I'm seeing other people characters running around. Not typing with them in a chat room or looking at their stat sheets. Is this narrow minded? Yes, because it doesn't need to be any wider.
What about roleplay? These are, nominally speaking, roleplaying games, aren't they?
Why don't we create interesting characters with unique personalities that we try to play out in character, similar to improvisational acting?
It's what we did before and it was, I must say, rather fun.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I get that it bothers you that some of us here have very distinct lines on what we consider an "MMORPG" and you disagree and/or just like arguing points for entertainment but this is a stretch. Yes, a good auction/trade system is a great aspect of an MMORPG and can be designed for more player interaction. I agree that the system itself could be done a lot better than a lot of MMOs do now. By itself? What is the purpose of the item? If there is no combat what are the items needed for? You said SIMs which is great if it was persistently shared with others. Trading between people but still having your own world where you never see them? IMO that isn't an MMO.
No matter how many times or angles you try to slice it Massively Multiplayer Online means I'm seeing other people characters running around. Not typing with them in a chat room or looking at their stat sheets. Is this narrow minded? Yes, because it doesn't need to be any wider.
Well just off the top of my head.
Take EQ2's instanced housing like Tenebrous isle where you actually build the house, put in some resources so you could shape the materials that you want, but say you are missign something to make a type of marble. So you need to use the bazaar/AH to try and get it.
Very little pve, the interaction would be through a bazaar/AH of some kind but still let you interact with hundreds/thousands of them online at the same time. You could also inspect, maybe even use their own little housing areas.
I would consider that an MMO.
edit - not a traditional one to be sure, but I ma online with thousands of others at the same time, able to interact with them and it's sort of a persistant world.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Years ago, Guild Wars was considered a CORPG rather than an MMORPG because it didn't have a massively multiplayer overland. Now GW is more of an MMO (at least it has multiplayer towns) than other games that are being called MMOs.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I get that it bothers you that some of us here have very distinct lines on what we consider an "MMORPG" and you disagree and/or just like arguing points for entertainment but this is a stretch. Yes, a good auction/trade system is a great aspect of an MMORPG and can be designed for more player interaction. I agree that the system itself could be done a lot better than a lot of MMOs do now. By itself? What is the purpose of the item? If there is no combat what are the items needed for? You said SIMs which is great if it was persistently shared with others. Trading between people but still having your own world where you never see them? IMO that isn't an MMO.
No matter how many times or angles you try to slice it Massively Multiplayer Online means I'm seeing other people characters running around. Not typing with them in a chat room or looking at their stat sheets. Is this narrow minded? Yes, because it doesn't need to be any wider.
He doesn't seem to understand that his classification of MMO really means that nearly any multiplayer game with any form of massive interaction is an MMO. For instance the following games are now MMO's in his eyes: Team Fortress 2, BF3, LoL, Diablo 3, ANY multiplay chess game, Free Cell Online, Payday, Call of Duty. Do you play with a massive amount of people in those games? No. You play with at most 63 other players (64 total) in BF3. However, all those games have interaction outside the game (and in some instances inside), that share stats, item trading and chat.
He basically likes networked online gaming. While he admits he likes one MMO that I know of (PS2), he generally seems to like multiplayer games that are networked. So basically, he likes networked online games. Sure they aren't massive, but they do indeed have the potential to interact (though not at the same time) with a massive amount of people. By removing the the part where you can interact with them all at the same time, you also remove the defining word of MMO, which is MASSIVE. Therefore, those games are not massive multiplayer.
I forgot which MMO i was playing, but I remember that while I was mining for crafting materials, there was players that was on Merchant mode, where they sell Pickaxe and various crafting materials and buffs onsite. Where people are making a fortune.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
What do you mean no one is pulling it off? There are plenty of persistencies in many games from UO, to WOW, to Diablo 3. Do you mean no one has make it fun? That is also not true. Persistent characters and progressions are fun in Diablo and WOW.
The persistent world is fun in PS2.
Persistent characters aren't the same thing as persistent worlds. There are persistent characters in Dragon Age.
You mean underpriced ARPG? Diablo 3 costs $60. Many MMOs are free. I wouldn't mind playing lower price MMOS as ARPGs.
F2P MMOs are free in the same way that time-share seminars are free vacations. If you believe otherwise, you're a sucker.
The TOR story is free now.
Yeah, but the action bars will cost you.
Depends on how MMO is defined. I do like DDO, PS2, DCUO, STO and a few other games categorized by teh industry as MMOs. I played UO in beta, and EQ for a year from scratch and found them to be horrible games. Modern MMOs are much more fun (to me).
That's my whole point. MMOs that succeed as online worlds have, up until this point, failed as games. Many newer MMOs succeed as games, and would be worth the price of a box. Unfortunately, they fail as online worlds and are therefore not worth the cost of admission.
I get that it bothers you that some of us here have very distinct lines on what we consider an "MMORPG" and you disagree and/or just like arguing points for entertainment but this is a stretch. Yes, a good auction/trade system is a great aspect of an MMORPG and can be designed for more player interaction. I agree that the system itself could be done a lot better than a lot of MMOs do now. By itself? What is the purpose of the item? If there is no combat what are the items needed for? You said SIMs which is great if it was persistently shared with others. Trading between people but still having your own world where you never see them? IMO that isn't an MMO.
No matter how many times or angles you try to slice it Massively Multiplayer Online means I'm seeing other people characters running around. Not typing with them in a chat room or looking at their stat sheets. Is this narrow minded? Yes, because it doesn't need to be any wider.
He doesn't seem to understand that his classification of MMO really means that nearly any multiplayer game with any form of massive interaction is an MMO. For instance the following games are now MMO's in his eyes: Team Fortress 2, BF3, LoL, Diablo 3, ANY multiplay chess game, Free Cell Online, Payday, Call of Duty. Do you play with a massive amount of people in those games? No. You play with at most 63 other players (64 total) in BF3. However, all those games have interaction outside the game (and in some instances inside), that share stats, item trading and chat.
He basically likes networked online gaming. While he admits he likes one MMO that I know of (PS2), he generally seems to like multiplayer games that are networked. So basically, he likes networked online games. Sure they aren't massive, but they do indeed have the potential to interact (though not at the same time) with a massive amount of people. By removing the the part where you can interact with them all at the same time, you also remove the defining word of MMO, which is MASSIVE. Therefore, those games are not massive multiplayer.
We are back to debating what is "massive" again?
Tell me, isn't it true that 90% of the end game of a game like WOW (dungeons, raids, BG/arena pvp) is not massive at all. In fact, BF3 has more players at the same time (64) then WOW raids, dungeons, *and* arena.
So why should i make a huge difference between the two? Play experience-wise, they are quite close.
Look, combat is fun and I don't necessarily want that to disappear wholesale from MMOs, but it's also true that the genre could benefit from some goal diversity, or at least games that faciliate multiple ways of playing. I would be all for a game that gives crafting, politics, and combat equal weight such that one person could play the game solely for one aspect and feel like they have a meaningful role in the game world. For that to work though I think would require a pretty substantial reinvention of the way these games work. You'll never be able to have a true economy in a game that has completely unlimited resources. Things don't have real value if you can farm them indefinitely and sell them off to NPCs indefinitely for a fixed price.
Originally posted by PsiKahn Look, combat is fun and I don't necessarily want that to disappear wholesale from MMOs, but it's also true that the genre could benefit from some goal diversity, or at least games that faciliate multiple ways of playing. I would be all for a game that gives crafting, politics, and combat equal weight such that one person could play the game solely for one aspect and feel like they have a meaningful role in the game world. For that to work though I think would require a pretty substantial reinvention of the way these games work. You'll never be able to have a true economy in a game that has completely unlimited resources. Things don't have real value if you can farm them indefinitely and sell them off to NPCs indefinitely for a fixed price.
Crafting and politics .. don't want it.
Stealth gameplay .. on the other hand .. can be fun (for me) although you don't need a MMO to get that. I suppose an online MP version can be fun .. just like a 5-man dungeon run .. but again, you don't need a virtual to do that.
Originally posted by PsiKahn Look, combat is fun and I don't necessarily want that to disappear wholesale from MMOs, but it's also true that the genre could benefit from some goal diversity, or at least games that faciliate multiple ways of playing. I would be all for a game that gives crafting, politics, and combat equal weight such that one person could play the game solely for one aspect and feel like they have a meaningful role in the game world. For that to work though I think would require a pretty substantial reinvention of the way these games work. You'll never be able to have a true economy in a game that has completely unlimited resources. Things don't have real value if you can farm them indefinitely and sell them off to NPCs indefinitely for a fixed price.
Crafting and politics .. don't want it.
Stealth gameplay .. on the other hand .. can be fun (for me) although you don't need a MMO to get that. I suppose an online MP version can be fun .. just like a 5-man dungeon run .. but again, you don't need a virtual to do that.
Well, one has to ask, what do you need a mmo for then?
You argue agains crafting and politics.
You argue against socialisation and anything that requires player interaction beyound clicking "join".
What is it? The usual feeling that you are better than the next avatar which may or may not be run by blizz as a experiment in AI ?
Originally posted by PsiKahn Look, combat is fun and I don't necessarily want that to disappear wholesale from MMOs, but it's also true that the genre could benefit from some goal diversity, or at least games that faciliate multiple ways of playing. I would be all for a game that gives crafting, politics, and combat equal weight such that one person could play the game solely for one aspect and feel like they have a meaningful role in the game world. For that to work though I think would require a pretty substantial reinvention of the way these games work. You'll never be able to have a true economy in a game that has completely unlimited resources. Things don't have real value if you can farm them indefinitely and sell them off to NPCs indefinitely for a fixed price.
Crafting and politics .. don't want it.
Stealth gameplay .. on the other hand .. can be fun (for me) although you don't need a MMO to get that. I suppose an online MP version can be fun .. just like a 5-man dungeon run .. but again, you don't need a virtual to do that.
Well, one has to ask, what do you need a mmo for then?
You argue agains crafting and politics.
You argue against socialisation and anything that requires player interaction beyound clicking "join".
What is it? The usual feeling that you are better than the next avatar which may or may not be run by blizz as a experiment in AI ?
Just curious.
Flame on!
Instance grouping. AH. and some instanced PvP (or the occasional large battle in PS2).
Comments
Using old ideas like persistency (which dated back to UO) is not innovation. YOu can argue that may be a "good" thing . .but innovation it is not.
Now going the OTHER way is innovation because it is new. May be we need a totally new gaming style .. like Marvel Heroes calling itself a MMO action RPG. Or a MOBA . which is obviously fairly new.
And persistency does not have to be in everything. Diablo series have character persistencies, and no world persistencies and it is a huge hit. Ten years is a long time .. if the genre is dead in 10 years, i am sure there are other stuff to do.
It's an old idea, but one that's never reached its full potential. It's like putting a man on Mars: people have been talking about it for a hundred years, but no one has managed to pull it off. Innovation is needed in the execution, not the conception.
It didn't start with UO either -- UO just proved that graphical MUDs could be commercially viable. Of all the later games, only EvE and pre-NGE SWG understood why people play MMOs. The problem with EvE, though, is that the simulation crowded out most of the other things that make games fun. The title that will rehabilitate the genre will take what CCP has achieved, and find a way to make it as accessible as early WoW. No one has ever done that before.
And no, persistence is not needed in every kind of game. That was never what I was saying. It's only essential in MMOs -- it's the defining quality of the genre, despite developers spending the last 8 years finding ways to eliminate it. The thing that made MMOs like UO or EvE special is that events are unfolding even when you're not around: they're not just games you play, they're places you visit. Everything else is just an overpriced ARPG.
The thing that people are missing when they talk about the death of the subscription model is not that consumers don't want to pay subs, it's that the latest generation of games aren't worth it. Battlegrounds and instanced co-op PvE are, in substance, no different from the kind of multiplayer offered free by pretty much every other type of game.
Compare SWTOR to Mass Effect 3. Both games let you play through a single-player story with lots of voice acting, cut scenes, and straight corridors. Both games have non-persistent multiplayer modes that are, for the most part, entirely separate from the single-player experience. ME3 included it in the price of the box, where SWTOR expected you to pay in installments.
Again, I'm not saying all games need persistence. I get what you've been saying, but I think what you're looking for is Xbox Live, not an MMO.
Massive interaction does not equal massive multiplayer. I guess my email is also an MMO by your terms.
Istaria has had public crafting since 2003. Their only dungeon was dug out by the players.
Multiplayer is not limited to pve and pvp.
I get that it bothers you that some of us here have very distinct lines on what we consider an "MMORPG" and you disagree and/or just like arguing points for entertainment but this is a stretch. Yes, a good auction/trade system is a great aspect of an MMORPG and can be designed for more player interaction. I agree that the system itself could be done a lot better than a lot of MMOs do now. By itself? What is the purpose of the item? If there is no combat what are the items needed for? You said SIMs which is great if it was persistently shared with others. Trading between people but still having your own world where you never see them? IMO that isn't an MMO.
No matter how many times or angles you try to slice it Massively Multiplayer Online means I'm seeing other people characters running around. Not typing with them in a chat room or looking at their stat sheets. Is this narrow minded? Yes, because it doesn't need to be any wider.
What about roleplay? These are, nominally speaking, roleplaying games, aren't they?
Why don't we create interesting characters with unique personalities that we try to play out in character, similar to improvisational acting?
It's what we did before and it was, I must say, rather fun.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Well just off the top of my head.
Take EQ2's instanced housing like Tenebrous isle where you actually build the house, put in some resources so you could shape the materials that you want, but say you are missign something to make a type of marble. So you need to use the bazaar/AH to try and get it.
Very little pve, the interaction would be through a bazaar/AH of some kind but still let you interact with hundreds/thousands of them online at the same time. You could also inspect, maybe even use their own little housing areas.
I would consider that an MMO.
edit - not a traditional one to be sure, but I ma online with thousands of others at the same time, able to interact with them and it's sort of a persistant world.
Years ago, Guild Wars was considered a CORPG rather than an MMORPG because it didn't have a massively multiplayer overland. Now GW is more of an MMO (at least it has multiplayer towns) than other games that are being called MMOs.
Agreed. However, I have explained my point enough, and I don't believe it needs further explaining. An AH is not an MMOG.
He doesn't seem to understand that his classification of MMO really means that nearly any multiplayer game with any form of massive interaction is an MMO. For instance the following games are now MMO's in his eyes: Team Fortress 2, BF3, LoL, Diablo 3, ANY multiplay chess game, Free Cell Online, Payday, Call of Duty. Do you play with a massive amount of people in those games? No. You play with at most 63 other players (64 total) in BF3. However, all those games have interaction outside the game (and in some instances inside), that share stats, item trading and chat.
He basically likes networked online gaming. While he admits he likes one MMO that I know of (PS2), he generally seems to like multiplayer games that are networked. So basically, he likes networked online games. Sure they aren't massive, but they do indeed have the potential to interact (though not at the same time) with a massive amount of people. By removing the the part where you can interact with them all at the same time, you also remove the defining word of MMO, which is MASSIVE. Therefore, those games are not massive multiplayer.
Life is a Maze, so make sure you bring your GPS incase you get lost in it.
We are back to debating what is "massive" again?
Tell me, isn't it true that 90% of the end game of a game like WOW (dungeons, raids, BG/arena pvp) is not massive at all. In fact, BF3 has more players at the same time (64) then WOW raids, dungeons, *and* arena.
So why should i make a huge difference between the two? Play experience-wise, they are quite close.
that's called market pvp.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I don't see why not.
lolz, not
mmo is short for MMORPG you noobs
that means Many Men Online Role Playing Girls
gawd, get it right
Crafting and politics .. don't want it.
Stealth gameplay .. on the other hand .. can be fun (for me) although you don't need a MMO to get that. I suppose an online MP version can be fun .. just like a 5-man dungeon run .. but again, you don't need a virtual to do that.
Well, one has to ask, what do you need a mmo for then?
You argue agains crafting and politics.
You argue against socialisation and anything that requires player interaction beyound clicking "join".
What is it? The usual feeling that you are better than the next avatar which may or may not be run by blizz as a experiment in AI ?
Just curious.
Flame on!
Instance grouping. AH. and some instanced PvP (or the occasional large battle in PS2).
Hell, well over half of the players are dumber than your average AI even with taunt mechanics. AI doesn't bitch or moan and does what its told.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky