While I don't think there is any dispute about the number of players in the lobby or auction house, are those what League of Legends, (and similar games), are all about?
I am sure some players log in simply to chat in the lobby or buy/sell in the auction house, but really, is that what this game is all about? Can you sell in the auction house without playing in matches? (Where does the gear come from?)
I thought the matches was where the game was played. Matches are very limited in the players allowed in. Very limited. Maybe I'm mistaken?
What games are "about" is up to the individual player.
So what if the core gameplay is limited. Most players queue for small instances in WoW too ... is WoW "massive" for them?
Originally posted by lizardbones Yes, each of the "matches" is the main point of the game, and in each match, players are interacting with a limited number of people. The limit ranges from 4 people total to what, a hundred or so, maybe two hundred? The number of people in each match is not "massive". Not in my opinion. Though, in WoW, I'm not sure I was on screen with a massive number of people at any given time either. If I walked far enough away from a group of players or mobs, I could still see the landscape, but not the players or mobs.
I had no idea LoL and such had matches with so many different players (100-200?). But the gist is what I underlined in your post, "In my opinion." Unfortunately, everyone has their own opinion on what constitutes "massive." As for WoW, I experienced a "massive" gathering of players when Cata released. Many players gathered to get their new, faster mounts in Stormwind.
Originally posted by lizardbones In games like World of Tanks, players aren't interacting with the same people over and over. They are interacting with new people during each "match". In an MMORPG, I'm not interacting with a thousand people all at once, I'm interacting with a few people at a time. The difference appears to be that in one, I'm traveling through a world, and in the other I'm not traveling but "teleporting" to zones where the players are. I can still interact with as many people, all logged into the same server I'm logged into, the difference is the method I use to get to where the people are.
Same here. I guess the difference boils down to "opportunity." While in a group, I am interacting with 2-8 players. While soloing, I have the "opportunity" to interact with anyone else I come across. I may have chat boxes (world chat, local chat, guild chat, maybe a "/tell" conversation going on) open where I can interact lots, or a few, but that is similar to the lobbies in the other examples of games. I am not engaging in "the game" through chat channels
Originally posted by lizardbones Either "MMO" and "MMORPG" are the same thing, in which case games like WoT or D3 cannot be MMOs because they do not have a persistent and shared world, or "MMO" doesn't mean what "MMORPG" means, in which case WoT and D3 can be an MMO. Having a persistent, shared world is a requirement of MMORPGs, but unless MMO=MMORPG, having a persistent, shared world isn't necessarily a requirement of MMOs. There doesn't appear to be a third option on the table.
Why? Why is it either/or? Why do you think they have to be the same thing? MMORPGs ARE MMOs, but the reverse is not always true. MMORPG is a "sub-set" of MMO, just like MMOFPS, MMORTS, MMOARPG, and the rest of MMO sub-sets. What all of these genres have in common is, "MMO."
Originally posted by lizardbones It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
MMO is the same thing as an MMOG. The "G" is inferred in "MMO." Otherwise, we would be talking about MMO Chat Room, MMO e-mail service, or MMO Video Sharing. "Multi-player" kind of assumes we are speaking about games, don't you agree?
MMORPGs used to infer "persistent worlds." Because other people (and games) wanted in on the phenomena, they decided to jump on the bandwagon. Why? I have no idea MMORPGs and MMO(G)s are NOT that great of sellers, as a genre. What they do, other than massively multi-player, can be done so much better in single player games of the same sub-genre.
I often wonder why people even want to classify games that do not fit MMORPG generally accepted definition (or even MMO), as such. What is the point?
When all is said and done, people looking for MMORPGs, or even just MMOs, will not appreciate being directed to a game that does not have the features that these 2 "labels" indicate. Why even try?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by lizardbones Yes, each of the "matches" is the main point of the game, and in each match, players are interacting with a limited number of people. The limit ranges from 4 people total to what, a hundred or so, maybe two hundred? The number of people in each match is not "massive". Not in my opinion. Though, in WoW, I'm not sure I was on screen with a massive number of people at any given time either. If I walked far enough away from a group of players or mobs, I could still see the landscape, but not the players or mobs.
I had no idea LoL and such had matches with so many different players (100-200?). But the gist is what I underlined in your post, "In my opinion." Unfortunately, everyone has their own opinion on what constitutes "massive." As for WoW, I experienced a "massive" gathering of players when Cata released. Many players gathered to get their new, faster mounts in Stormwind.
Originally posted by lizardbones In games like World of Tanks, players aren't interacting with the same people over and over. They are interacting with new people during each "match". In an MMORPG, I'm not interacting with a thousand people all at once, I'm interacting with a few people at a time. The difference appears to be that in one, I'm traveling through a world, and in the other I'm not traveling but "teleporting" to zones where the players are. I can still interact with as many people, all logged into the same server I'm logged into, the difference is the method I use to get to where the people are.
Same here. I guess the difference boils down to "opportunity." While in a group, I am interacting with 2-8 players. While soloing, I have the "opportunity" to interact with anyone else I come across. I may have chat boxes (world chat, local chat, guild chat, maybe a "/tell" conversation going on) open where I can interact lots, or a few, but that is similar to the lobbies in the other examples of games. I am not engaging in "the game" through chat channels
Originally posted by lizardbones Either "MMO" and "MMORPG" are the same thing, in which case games like WoT or D3 cannot be MMOs because they do not have a persistent and shared world, or "MMO" doesn't mean what "MMORPG" means, in which case WoT and D3 can be an MMO. Having a persistent, shared world is a requirement of MMORPGs, but unless MMO=MMORPG, having a persistent, shared world isn't necessarily a requirement of MMOs. There doesn't appear to be a third option on the table.
Why? Why is it either/or? Why do you think they have to be the same thing? MMORPGs ARE MMOs, but the reverse is not always true. MMORPG is a "sub-set" of MMO, just like MMOFPS, MMORTS, MMOARPG, and the rest of MMO sub-sets. What all of these genres have in common is, "MMO."
Originally posted by lizardbones It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
MMO is the same thing as an MMOG. The "G" is inferred in "MMO." Otherwise, we would be talking about MMO Chat Room, MMO e-mail service, or MMO Video Sharing. "Multi-player" kind of assumes we are speaking about games, don't you agree?
MMORPGs used to infer "persistent worlds." Because other people (and games) wanted in on the phenomena, they decided to jump on the bandwagon. Why? I have no idea MMORPGs and MMO(G)s are NOT that great of sellers, as a genre. What they do, other than massively multi-player, can be done so much better in single player games of the same sub-genre.
I often wonder why people even want to classify games that do not fit MMORPG generally accepted definition (or even MMO), as such. What is the point?
When all is said and done, people looking for MMORPGs, or even just MMOs, will not appreciate being directed to a game that does not have the features that these 2 "labels" indicate. Why even try?
I have been in a zone with many, many players in WoW. I don't really know how many, but once it was enough to crash the server. It was a really rare event to be in the same spot with a hundred or two hundred people though. But it did happen. I'm pretty sure I've never seen more than 200 people on my screen at the same time though.
I wasn't saying that MMO and MMORPG must be the same thing. The two terms either refer to the same thing and are interchangable, which means D3 and WoT cannot be an MMO the way that World of Warcraft is an MMO, or MMORPG and MMO have a different meaning, which would allow for D3 and WoT to be MMOs, while WoW is an MMORPG. There doesn't seem to be a third option where WoW is an MMORPG, MMO is not the same thing as MMORPG, but D3 and WoT cannot be MMOs.
It doesn't seem like anyone has brought up option 3 in a conversation or said that it's the "way things are". Options 1 and 2 seem to be the two options competing with each other.
As far as the definitions, I just find it interesting that it's such a contestable topic. Having terms to describe something specific certainly makes it easier to discuss things in an efficient manner, but two different definitions seem to intersect with "MMO" and I wanted to see where people put themselves. I know how I use the term, and I'm perfectly fine with adjusting that for a conversation, using "MMO" to mean "MMORPG" even though I see it as an umbrella term, but then I'm pretty open to things changing. It wouldn't bother me if in a week "MMO" had an accepted meaning completely foreign to what I think it means now as long as I had some idea of what it meant.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Yes, each of the "matches" is the main point of the game, and in each match, players are interacting with a limited number of people. The limit ranges from 4 people total to what, a hundred or so, maybe two hundred? The number of people in each match is not "massive". Not in my opinion. Though, in WoW, I'm not sure I was on screen with a massive number of people at any given time either. If I walked far enough away from a group of players or mobs, I could still see the landscape, but not the players or mobs.
I had no idea LoL and such had matches with so many different players (100-200?). But the gist is what I underlined in your post, "In my opinion." Unfortunately, everyone has their own opinion on what constitutes "massive." As for WoW, I experienced a "massive" gathering of players when Cata released. Many players gathered to get their new, faster mounts in Stormwind.
Originally posted by lizardbones In games like World of Tanks, players aren't interacting with the same people over and over. They are interacting with new people during each "match". In an MMORPG, I'm not interacting with a thousand people all at once, I'm interacting with a few people at a time. The difference appears to be that in one, I'm traveling through a world, and in the other I'm not traveling but "teleporting" to zones where the players are. I can still interact with as many people, all logged into the same server I'm logged into, the difference is the method I use to get to where the people are.
Same here. I guess the difference boils down to "opportunity." While in a group, I am interacting with 2-8 players. While soloing, I have the "opportunity" to interact with anyone else I come across. I may have chat boxes (world chat, local chat, guild chat, maybe a "/tell" conversation going on) open where I can interact lots, or a few, but that is similar to the lobbies in the other examples of games. I am not engaging in "the game" through chat channels
Originally posted by lizardbones Either "MMO" and "MMORPG" are the same thing, in which case games like WoT or D3 cannot be MMOs because they do not have a persistent and shared world, or "MMO" doesn't mean what "MMORPG" means, in which case WoT and D3 can be an MMO. Having a persistent, shared world is a requirement of MMORPGs, but unless MMO=MMORPG, having a persistent, shared world isn't necessarily a requirement of MMOs. There doesn't appear to be a third option on the table.
Why? Why is it either/or? Why do you think they have to be the same thing? MMORPGs ARE MMOs, but the reverse is not always true. MMORPG is a "sub-set" of MMO, just like MMOFPS, MMORTS, MMOARPG, and the rest of MMO sub-sets. What all of these genres have in common is, "MMO."
Originally posted by lizardbones It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
MMO is the same thing as an MMOG. The "G" is inferred in "MMO." Otherwise, we would be talking about MMO Chat Room, MMO e-mail service, or MMO Video Sharing. "Multi-player" kind of assumes we are speaking about games, don't you agree?
MMORPGs used to infer "persistent worlds." Because other people (and games) wanted in on the phenomena, they decided to jump on the bandwagon. Why? I have no idea MMORPGs and MMO(G)s are NOT that great of sellers, as a genre. What they do, other than massively multi-player, can be done so much better in single player games of the same sub-genre.
I often wonder why people even want to classify games that do not fit MMORPG generally accepted definition (or even MMO), as such. What is the point?
When all is said and done, people looking for MMORPGs, or even just MMOs, will not appreciate being directed to a game that does not have the features that these 2 "labels" indicate. Why even try?
Originally posted by Swids2010 Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
A "massive" number of people are interacting with each other in the lobby, and a "massive" number of people were interacting through the auction house. Both inside and outside of the game players are trading items on a massive level now that there's no auction house.
Is the "massive" aspect of "MMO" only valid if it includes potentially seeing a "massive" number of players inside a game's world?
While I don't think there is any dispute about the number of players in the lobby or auction house, are those what League of Legends, (and similar games), are all about?
I am sure some players log in simply to chat in the lobby or buy/sell in the auction house, but really, is that what this game is all about? Can you sell in the auction house without playing in matches? (Where does the gear come from?)
I thought the matches was where the game was played. Matches are very limited in the players allowed in. Very limited. Maybe I'm mistaken?
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
Now lets absorb how "Insert word I dont want to say here" that sounds...
Originally posted by lizardbones I have been in a zone with many, many players in WoW. I don't really know how many, but once it was enough to crash the server. It was a really rare event to be in the same spot with a hundred or two hundred people though. But it did happen. I'm pretty sure I've never seen more than 200 people on my screen at the same time though.I wasn't saying that MMO and MMORPG must be the same thing. The two terms either refer to the same thing and are interchangable, which means D3 and WoT cannot be an MMO the way that World of Warcraft is an MMO, or MMORPG and MMO have a different meaning, which would allow for D3 and WoT to be MMOs, while WoW is an MMORPG. There doesn't seem to be a third option where WoW is an MMORPG, MMO is not the same thing as MMORPG, but D3 and WoT cannot be MMOs.1) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG = MMO & D3/WoT != MMO (MMORPG)2) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT = MMO3) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMOIt doesn't seem like anyone has brought up option 3 in a conversation or said that it's the "way things are". Options 1 and 2 seem to be the two options competing with each other.As far as the definitions, I just find it interesting that it's such a contestable topic. Having terms to describe something specific certainly makes it easier to discuss things in an efficient manner, but two different definitions seem to intersect with "MMO" and I wanted to see where people put themselves. I know how I use the term, and I'm perfectly fine with adjusting that for a conversation, using "MMO" to mean "MMORPG" even though I see it as an umbrella term, but then I'm pretty open to things changing. It wouldn't bother me if in a week "MMO" had an accepted meaning completely foreign to what I think it means now as long as I had some idea of what it meant.
Yes, that mass of players in my screenshot was annoyingly terrible. I could not even reach the "flight instructor"
What about the 4th formula?
4) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMO
The reason I add it is that you seem to assume a different qualification for MMO not previously defined. Just because a game does not "fit" into the "MMORPG" category, does not automatically make it an "MMO." Plug in any multi-player game other than D3 or WoT, and the formula fails. CoD? Doom on a LAN? Unreal Tournament?
Then, you get into the "sticky wicket" that is RPG definition
While you say you are not trying to say "MMORPG = MMO", your arguments seem to point to this assumption. Am I misreading them?
Really, when all is said and done, anyone can call anything whatever they want. The troubles come when communicating that idea to others. In some aspects, D3 and WoT could be called MMOs. The "opportunity" to play with lots (massive numbers?) of other players could be seen as the same as an persistent world with the "opportunities." Usually, most players are not interacting with all of these players on a consistent basis, just like D3 and WoT. I think the difference for most is that in, say WoW, the other players are "seen in the world" whereas in the D3 and WoT, they are not.
PS: Sorry about the post trimming. My formatting got all screwed up, so I threw up my hands in defeat
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by lizardbones I have been in a zone with many, many players in WoW. I don't really know how many, but once it was enough to crash the server. It was a really rare event to be in the same spot with a hundred or two hundred people though. But it did happen. I'm pretty sure I've never seen more than 200 people on my screen at the same time though.
I wasn't saying that MMO and MMORPG must be the same thing. The two terms either refer to the same thing and are interchangable, which means D3 and WoT cannot be an MMO the way that World of Warcraft is an MMO, or MMORPG and MMO have a different meaning, which would allow for D3 and WoT to be MMOs, while WoW is an MMORPG. There doesn't seem to be a third option where WoW is an MMORPG, MMO is not the same thing as MMORPG, but D3 and WoT cannot be MMOs.
It doesn't seem like anyone has brought up option 3 in a conversation or said that it's the "way things are". Options 1 and 2 seem to be the two options competing with each other.
As far as the definitions, I just find it interesting that it's such a contestable topic. Having terms to describe something specific certainly makes it easier to discuss things in an efficient manner, but two different definitions seem to intersect with "MMO" and I wanted to see where people put themselves. I know how I use the term, and I'm perfectly fine with adjusting that for a conversation, using "MMO" to mean "MMORPG" even though I see it as an umbrella term, but then I'm pretty open to things changing. It wouldn't bother me if in a week "MMO" had an accepted meaning completely foreign to what I think it means now as long as I had some idea of what it meant.
Yes, that mass of players in my screenshot was annoyingly terrible. I could not even reach the "flight instructor"
What about the 4th formula?
4) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMO
The reason I add it is that you seem to assume a different qualification for MMO not previously defined. Just because a game does not "fit" into the "MMORPG" category, does not automatically make it an "MMO." Plug in any multi-player game other than D3 or WoT, and the formula fails. CoD? Doom on a LAN? Unreal Tournament?
Then, you get into the "sticky wicket" that is RPG definition
While you say you are not trying to say "MMORPG = MMO", your arguments seem to point to this assumption. Am I misreading them?
Really, when all is said and done, anyone can call anything whatever they want. The troubles come when communicating that idea to others. In some aspects, D3 and WoT could be called MMOs. The "opportunity" to play with lots (massive numbers?) of other players could be seen as the same as an persistent world with the "opportunities." Usually, most players are not interacting with all of these players on a consistent basis, just like D3 and WoT. I think the difference for most is that in, say WoW, the other players are "seen in the world" whereas in the D3 and WoT, they are not.
PS: Sorry about the post trimming. My formatting got all screwed up, so I threw up my hands in defeat
Your Option 4 and my Option 3 are the same thing. I looked twice just to be sure. So far, I haven't seen anyone say, "MMO is an umbrella term that covers MMORPGs as well as other types of games. However, D3 and WoT are not covered by that umbrella." If they have, I've missed it. The conversation, such as it is, has been dominated by the idea that either MMOs and MMORPGs are the same thing, or that MMORPGs and MMOs are related, but different, like squares and rectangles. Again, I suppose I could have missed something but if so, I'm not aware of it. Obviously. :-)
When I was talking about "Massive" in previous posts, I was observing that seeing a massive number of people shouldn't necessarily be the benchmark to say whether or not a game is Massively Multiplayer. UO was massively multiplayer, and most of the interactions occurred one or two players at a time, rather than all at once. The persistence of the world is what allowed a truly massive number of interactions over time that rendered the single point in time interactions, even if they were very large, irrelevant. Yes, I could be on the screen with a hundred other people. That's a lot of interactions, but it's not massive. Over time, I could potentially interact directly and indirectly with thousands or even tens of thousands of people. Now that's massive. You can have a massive number of interactions in D3, just as you can in WoW, over time. The difference is that one has a persistent world, and the other doesn't. The difference is not "massive interactions" but "persistent world". This sounds similar, or the same as what you've said.
My stance on the whole thing is that all MMORPGs are MMOs, but not all MMOs are MMORPGs. MOBAs, some ARPGs and some FPS games are MMOs too. "MMO" is a general term, implying that you're going to be playing online with a lot of people using some sort of avatar in a game world, but you need to check the details of the game to find out exactly how you're going to be doing it. I will, for the sake of discussion, ask questions wondering which aspect of "MMO" are the important ones though, even if it makes me look like my point of view is different than what it actually is. I will also try to not derail a topic to prove MMO v. MMORPG. That's why I started this thread. Another thread got me thinking but I didn't want to derail yet another thread.
So really, I just want to know how important it is to understand what "MMO" means, relative to "MMORPG". How many people do not differentiate between the two terms? How many people differentiate between the terms? Part of it is some social validation. Do my views oppose or jive with the majority view? What I'd really like to know is how important this is. How strongly held is the view that "MMO is MMORPG" versus "MMORPG is a subset of MMO".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
That argument assumes that logic is used, as opposed to an arbitrary convenient categorization.
LoL is a MMO. Warcraft 3 is not. It is just that. No logic. No reasoning. Totally arbitrary.
What if part of it is time based? At the time Warcraft 3 was developed, "MMO" was not a commonly used term, and was not an umbrella term. Retroactively applying the term is not done.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
That argument assumes that logic is used, as opposed to an arbitrary convenient categorization.
LoL is a MMO. Warcraft 3 is not. It is just that. No logic. No reasoning. Totally arbitrary.
What if part of it is time based? At the time Warcraft 3 was developed, "MMO" was not a commonly used term, and was not an umbrella term. Retroactively applying the term is not done.
Sure, it can be. But how about SC2 ... how come that is not a MMO then?
People can spend all the time thinking of reasons of whether game X is a MMO or not, and there are always exceptions, and seemingly weird corner cases. It is much easier just accept it as a convenient label, and leave it as such.
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
That argument assumes that logic is used, as opposed to an arbitrary convenient categorization.
LoL is a MMO. Warcraft 3 is not. It is just that. No logic. No reasoning. Totally arbitrary.
What if part of it is time based? At the time Warcraft 3 was developed, "MMO" was not a commonly used term, and was not an umbrella term. Retroactively applying the term is not done.
Sure, it can be. But how about SC2 ... how come that is not a MMO then?
People can spend all the time thinking of reasons of whether game X is a MMO or not, and there are always exceptions, and seemingly weird corner cases. It is much easier just accept it as a convenient label, and leave it as such.
What, you don't want to spend your time working out whether or not a game is an MMO or not? It's not that hard.
IF
Create Date >= {X}
AND Popularity on MMORPG forums >= {Y}
AND Interactions Over Time >= {Z} Per Month or Year
THEN
Variable Game Is An MMO
HAVING +/- {A} Degree of Accuracy
Easy Peasy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones I have been in a zone with many, many players in WoW. I don't really know how many, but once it was enough to crash the server. It was a really rare event to be in the same spot with a hundred or two hundred people though. But it did happen. I'm pretty sure I've never seen more than 200 people on my screen at the same time though.
I wasn't saying that MMO and MMORPG must be the same thing. The two terms either refer to the same thing and are interchangable, which means D3 and WoT cannot be an MMO the way that World of Warcraft is an MMO, or MMORPG and MMO have a different meaning, which would allow for D3 and WoT to be MMOs, while WoW is an MMORPG. There doesn't seem to be a third option where WoW is an MMORPG, MMO is not the same thing as MMORPG, but D3 and WoT cannot be MMOs.
It doesn't seem like anyone has brought up option 3 in a conversation or said that it's the "way things are". Options 1 and 2 seem to be the two options competing with each other.
As far as the definitions, I just find it interesting that it's such a contestable topic. Having terms to describe something specific certainly makes it easier to discuss things in an efficient manner, but two different definitions seem to intersect with "MMO" and I wanted to see where people put themselves. I know how I use the term, and I'm perfectly fine with adjusting that for a conversation, using "MMO" to mean "MMORPG" even though I see it as an umbrella term, but then I'm pretty open to things changing. It wouldn't bother me if in a week "MMO" had an accepted meaning completely foreign to what I think it means now as long as I had some idea of what it meant.
Yes, that mass of players in my screenshot was annoyingly terrible. I could not even reach the "flight instructor"
What about the 4th formula?
4) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMO
The reason I add it is that you seem to assume a different qualification for MMO not previously defined. Just because a game does not "fit" into the "MMORPG" category, does not automatically make it an "MMO." Plug in any multi-player game other than D3 or WoT, and the formula fails. CoD? Doom on a LAN? Unreal Tournament?
Then, you get into the "sticky wicket" that is RPG definition
While you say you are not trying to say "MMORPG = MMO", your arguments seem to point to this assumption. Am I misreading them?
Really, when all is said and done, anyone can call anything whatever they want. The troubles come when communicating that idea to others. In some aspects, D3 and WoT could be called MMOs. The "opportunity" to play with lots (massive numbers?) of other players could be seen as the same as an persistent world with the "opportunities." Usually, most players are not interacting with all of these players on a consistent basis, just like D3 and WoT. I think the difference for most is that in, say WoW, the other players are "seen in the world" whereas in the D3 and WoT, they are not.
PS: Sorry about the post trimming. My formatting got all screwed up, so I threw up my hands in defeat
Your Option 4 and my Option 3 are the same thing. I looked twice just to be sure. So far, I haven't seen anyone say, "MMO is an umbrella term that covers MMORPGs as well as other types of games. However, D3 and WoT are not covered by that umbrella." If they have, I've missed it. The conversation, such as it is, has been dominated by the idea that either MMOs and MMORPGs are the same thing, or that MMORPGs and MMOs are related, but different, like squares and rectangles. Again, I suppose I could have missed something but if so, I'm not aware of it. Obviously. :-)
When I was talking about "Massive" in previous posts, I was observing that seeing a massive number of people shouldn't necessarily be the benchmark to say whether or not a game is Massively Multiplayer. UO was massively multiplayer, and most of the interactions occurred one or two players at a time, rather than all at once. The persistence of the world is what allowed a truly massive number of interactions over time that rendered the single point in time interactions, even if they were very large, irrelevant. Yes, I could be on the screen with a hundred other people. That's a lot of interactions, but it's not massive. Over time, I could potentially interact directly and indirectly with thousands or even tens of thousands of people. Now that's massive. You can have a massive number of interactions in D3, just as you can in WoW, over time. The difference is that one has a persistent world, and the other doesn't. The difference is not "massive interactions" but "persistent world". This sounds similar, or the same as what you've said.
My stance on the whole thing is that all MMORPGs are MMOs, but not all MMOs are MMORPGs. MOBAs, some ARPGs and some FPS games are MMOs too. "MMO" is a general term, implying that you're going to be playing online with a lot of people using some sort of avatar in a game world, but you need to check the details of the game to find out exactly how you're going to be doing it. I will, for the sake of discussion, ask questions wondering which aspect of "MMO" are the important ones though, even if it makes me look like my point of view is different than what it actually is. I will also try to not derail a topic to prove MMO v. MMORPG. That's why I started this thread. Another thread got me thinking but I didn't want to derail yet another thread.
So really, I just want to know how important it is to understand what "MMO" means, relative to "MMORPG". How many people do not differentiate between the two terms? How many people differentiate between the terms? Part of it is some social validation. Do my views oppose or jive with the majority view? What I'd really like to know is how important this is. How strongly held is the view that "MMO is MMORPG" versus "MMORPG is a subset of MMO".
OK. Trying to type and extract my foot out of my mouth. I have no idea what I was thinking with my redundant option #4. Sorry about that
As for the rest, I think the light has finally come on in my head. We are in agreement, across the board
Sorry about my obtuseness
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Think nothing of it. I wasn't making much effort to be clear about my position, thinking it wasn't that important. I can see how it would be interpreted as you saw it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
That argument assumes that logic is used, as opposed to an arbitrary convenient categorization.
LoL is a MMO. Warcraft 3 is not. It is just that. No logic. No reasoning. Totally arbitrary.
What if part of it is time based? At the time Warcraft 3 was developed, "MMO" was not a commonly used term, and was not an umbrella term. Retroactively applying the term is not done.
Sure, it can be. But how about SC2 ... how come that is not a MMO then?
People can spend all the time thinking of reasons of whether game X is a MMO or not, and there are always exceptions, and seemingly weird corner cases. It is much easier just accept it as a convenient label, and leave it as such.
What, you don't want to spend your time working out whether or not a game is an MMO or not? It's not that hard.
IF
Create Date >= {X}
AND Popularity on MMORPG forums >= {Y}
AND Interactions Over Time >= {Z} Per Month or Year
THEN
Variable Game Is An MMO
HAVING +/- {A} Degree of Accuracy
Easy Peasy.
Only if everyone agrees .. and judging just by the volume on this thread .. there is always one who will disagree.
And how is this easier than just use whatever conventional definition by the industry? If you do a search on a game, and 3 or more reviews think that it is a MMO, it is.
Comments
What games are "about" is up to the individual player.
So what if the core gameplay is limited. Most players queue for small instances in WoW too ... is WoW "massive" for them?
MMORPGs used to infer "persistent worlds." Because other people (and games) wanted in on the phenomena, they decided to jump on the bandwagon. Why? I have no idea
MMORPGs and MMO(G)s are NOT that great of sellers, as a genre. What they do, other than massively multi-player, can be done so much better in single player games of the same sub-genre.
I often wonder why people even want to classify games that do not fit MMORPG generally accepted definition (or even MMO), as such. What is the point?
When all is said and done, people looking for MMORPGs, or even just MMOs, will not appreciate being directed to a game that does not have the features that these 2 "labels" indicate. Why even try?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I have been in a zone with many, many players in WoW. I don't really know how many, but once it was enough to crash the server. It was a really rare event to be in the same spot with a hundred or two hundred people though. But it did happen. I'm pretty sure I've never seen more than 200 people on my screen at the same time though.
I wasn't saying that MMO and MMORPG must be the same thing. The two terms either refer to the same thing and are interchangable, which means D3 and WoT cannot be an MMO the way that World of Warcraft is an MMO, or MMORPG and MMO have a different meaning, which would allow for D3 and WoT to be MMOs, while WoW is an MMORPG. There doesn't seem to be a third option where WoW is an MMORPG, MMO is not the same thing as MMORPG, but D3 and WoT cannot be MMOs.
1) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG = MMO & D3/WoT != MMO (MMORPG)
2) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT = MMO
3) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMO
It doesn't seem like anyone has brought up option 3 in a conversation or said that it's the "way things are". Options 1 and 2 seem to be the two options competing with each other.
As far as the definitions, I just find it interesting that it's such a contestable topic. Having terms to describe something specific certainly makes it easier to discuss things in an efficient manner, but two different definitions seem to intersect with "MMO" and I wanted to see where people put themselves. I know how I use the term, and I'm perfectly fine with adjusting that for a conversation, using "MMO" to mean "MMORPG" even though I see it as an umbrella term, but then I'm pretty open to things changing. It wouldn't bother me if in a week "MMO" had an accepted meaning completely foreign to what I think it means now as long as I had some idea of what it meant.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
stand-o-vation
/tears-from-eyes
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Also keep in mind that LoL is based off of DoTA, which was a mod of Warcraft 3 RTS.
So if LoL is a MMO, than so is Warcraft 3.
Now lets absorb how "Insert word I dont want to say here" that sounds...
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
What about the 4th formula?
4) WoW = MMORPG & MMORPG != MMO & D3/WoT != MMO
The reason I add it is that you seem to assume a different qualification for MMO not previously defined. Just because a game does not "fit" into the "MMORPG" category, does not automatically make it an "MMO." Plug in any multi-player game other than D3 or WoT, and the formula fails. CoD? Doom on a LAN? Unreal Tournament?
Then, you get into the "sticky wicket" that is RPG definition
While you say you are not trying to say "MMORPG = MMO", your arguments seem to point to this assumption. Am I misreading them?
Really, when all is said and done, anyone can call anything whatever they want. The troubles come when communicating that idea to others. In some aspects, D3 and WoT could be called MMOs. The "opportunity" to play with lots (massive numbers?) of other players could be seen as the same as an persistent world with the "opportunities." Usually, most players are not interacting with all of these players on a consistent basis, just like D3 and WoT. I think the difference for most is that in, say WoW, the other players are "seen in the world" whereas in the D3 and WoT, they are not.
PS: Sorry about the post trimming. My formatting got all screwed up, so I threw up my hands in defeat
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
That argument assumes that logic is used, as opposed to an arbitrary convenient categorization.
LoL is a MMO. Warcraft 3 is not. It is just that. No logic. No reasoning. Totally arbitrary.
Your Option 4 and my Option 3 are the same thing. I looked twice just to be sure. So far, I haven't seen anyone say, "MMO is an umbrella term that covers MMORPGs as well as other types of games. However, D3 and WoT are not covered by that umbrella." If they have, I've missed it. The conversation, such as it is, has been dominated by the idea that either MMOs and MMORPGs are the same thing, or that MMORPGs and MMOs are related, but different, like squares and rectangles. Again, I suppose I could have missed something but if so, I'm not aware of it. Obviously. :-)
When I was talking about "Massive" in previous posts, I was observing that seeing a massive number of people shouldn't necessarily be the benchmark to say whether or not a game is Massively Multiplayer. UO was massively multiplayer, and most of the interactions occurred one or two players at a time, rather than all at once. The persistence of the world is what allowed a truly massive number of interactions over time that rendered the single point in time interactions, even if they were very large, irrelevant. Yes, I could be on the screen with a hundred other people. That's a lot of interactions, but it's not massive. Over time, I could potentially interact directly and indirectly with thousands or even tens of thousands of people. Now that's massive. You can have a massive number of interactions in D3, just as you can in WoW, over time. The difference is that one has a persistent world, and the other doesn't. The difference is not "massive interactions" but "persistent world". This sounds similar, or the same as what you've said.My stance on the whole thing is that all MMORPGs are MMOs, but not all MMOs are MMORPGs. MOBAs, some ARPGs and some FPS games are MMOs too. "MMO" is a general term, implying that you're going to be playing online with a lot of people using some sort of avatar in a game world, but you need to check the details of the game to find out exactly how you're going to be doing it. I will, for the sake of discussion, ask questions wondering which aspect of "MMO" are the important ones though, even if it makes me look like my point of view is different than what it actually is. I will also try to not derail a topic to prove MMO v. MMORPG. That's why I started this thread. Another thread got me thinking but I didn't want to derail yet another thread.
So really, I just want to know how important it is to understand what "MMO" means, relative to "MMORPG". How many people do not differentiate between the two terms? How many people differentiate between the terms? Part of it is some social validation. Do my views oppose or jive with the majority view? What I'd really like to know is how important this is. How strongly held is the view that "MMO is MMORPG" versus "MMORPG is a subset of MMO".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What if part of it is time based? At the time Warcraft 3 was developed, "MMO" was not a commonly used term, and was not an umbrella term. Retroactively applying the term is not done.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sure, it can be. But how about SC2 ... how come that is not a MMO then?
People can spend all the time thinking of reasons of whether game X is a MMO or not, and there are always exceptions, and seemingly weird corner cases. It is much easier just accept it as a convenient label, and leave it as such.
What, you don't want to spend your time working out whether or not a game is an MMO or not? It's not that hard.
IF
Create Date >= {X}
AND Popularity on MMORPG forums >= {Y}
AND Interactions Over Time >= {Z} Per Month or Year
THEN
Variable Game Is An MMO
HAVING +/- {A} Degree of Accuracy
Easy Peasy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As for the rest, I think the light has finally come on in my head. We are in agreement, across the board
Sorry about my obtuseness
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Think nothing of it. I wasn't making much effort to be clear about my position, thinking it wasn't that important. I can see how it would be interpreted as you saw it.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Only if everyone agrees .. and judging just by the volume on this thread .. there is always one who will disagree.
And how is this easier than just use whatever conventional definition by the industry? If you do a search on a game, and 3 or more reviews think that it is a MMO, it is.
That is even simpler.