Okay WTF is a MMO? Really?

15681011

Comments

  • SephirosoSephiroso Marietta, GAMember UncommonPosts: 1,381
    All of you need Jesus.
    JemAs666MadFrenchiecraftseekerTorvalJamesGoblin

    image
    Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!

  • lancerxxlancerxx Phoenix, AZMember UncommonPosts: 36
    Sephiroso said:
    All of you need Jesus.
    No what we need is more Cowbell! :D
    JamesGoblin
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395
    wow .. this is still the most popular topic with the most posts (besides stickies).

    We certainly do not need Jesus when there is enough fun in a single issue. In fact, there is not ONE, but TWO topics (granted, slightly different variations) on how one should define MMOs.

    People are *so* passionate about how a three letter convenient label is defined and used. I am sure Jesus is pleased about humanity. Let's the game continue!
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,932
    I don't get why people are confused by this.  The definition is straight forward enough:

    "A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world)."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

    If it doesn't meet that criteria, it's not a MMO.  There's nothing to debate here.
    ConstantineMerusStoneRosesScorchienMaurgrimEldurianCecropiaGdemamiPhrycraftseekerExcessionand 3 others.
  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Seattle, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,478
    I don't get why people are confused by this.  The definition is straight forward enough:

    "A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world)."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

    If it doesn't meet that criteria, it's not a MMO.  There's nothing to debate here.
    Party Pooper! He presented facts!
    ConstantineMerusGdemamiPhryJamesGoblin
    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • someforumguysomeforumguy HomeMember UncommonPosts: 3,842
    I don't get why people are confused by this.  The definition is straight forward enough:

    "A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world)."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game

    If it doesn't meet that criteria, it's not a MMO.  There's nothing to debate here.
    Party Pooper! He presented facts!
    That description makes Minecraft a MMO. You can easily run a server that can support more then 100 players.

    The wiki entry in this case are also not really facts. No science was used, no leading experts were being asked, no statistics were used. The numbers are arbitrary and the comment about the instancing would make certain MMO's not a MMO. The only reason it has not been changed is because enough ppl agree with the statement because it is vague enough.

    Imo the way Steam uses the tags makes more sense. Nowadays many survival games can be played in singleplayer, multiplayer (using client also as host) and on a dedicated server (seperate server files). When played on a dedicated server that is powerful enough it could be described as a MMO. So one game can be singleplayer, multiplayer and MMO. Some of those games let you change so much, it could almost be seen as create your own MMO.
  • EldurianEldurian Member EpicPosts: 1,848
    edited September 3
    Personally, if we want to debate whether or not Minecraft servers capable of hosting hundreds of players are MMOs I'm down for that. I can actually see some logic behind calling large Minecraft servers MMOs. It's an entirely reasonable debate to be had.

    A lot of these other titles being thrown around by Nauri and a small handful of others are not reasonable to argue about. It's just a waste of time and in some cases probably just straight trolling.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    MadFrenchieLimnicGdemamiPhryConstantineMerusExcessionNildenJamesGoblin
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,177


    We don't define video game genres by how popular they are.
    So if only 5 people show up to a "proper" MMO, it is still a "massively multiplayer" game when all you get to interact with is 5?

    hmm .. for a person who cares so much about logic, there is something missing here. 
    Yeah, I don't get that argument.

    There is nothing massively multiplayer about an MMO that (and Istaria actually gets that low on off-times) only has 5-10 people playing. How is that massive? and how is that massively multiplayer? Often times those people won't say anything either, so its literally a singleplayer game at that point that happens to be able to hold more players but no one is playing it lol. 

    To me, I don't care if a server can hold 1 billion people, or 1000 people...if only 5-50 people are playing it, why does it matter if it can hold 1 billion people or even 1000 people if no one is playing it? That isn't massive, the only thing massive about that would be the server size lol.

    Definitely not very logical
    I agree with your first full paragraph.

    Let me add the strong qualifier that game design matters.  In the MMORPG I play, I have the capacity to shape the world to my (dis)advantage, organize with other players around common causes, build lasting social bonds, operate a virtual business, control territory, etc., to great effect.  I can't do that in a shared world shooter or online CCG (such as Elder Scrolls Legends).

    It's hard to believe this thread got 8 pages overnight, but part of it might be the ringing irony that sometimes genres other than MMORPGs make it feel "as if" you were playing in a much more populated space.  This may even be true in terms of sheer simultaneous player numbers, but it's important to note that while other 'quasi-MMO' genres may bring one into memorable encounters with other players more quickly than MMORPGs, these encounters are usually fleeting.  After I'm done with the match in ESL that player is lost in the mists, our former actions quickly assimilated into an entropic nothingness.

    It's not just a facet of being 'one drop in the ocean', either.  It's something fundamentally different about the way MMORPGs are designed.  Ask anyone who plays Eve, a well populated MMORPG, whether or not their actions matter.  I doubt you would get the same reaction from the also popular Elder Scrolls Legends crowd.

    To MMORPGs that suffer from low population at given points in time, I can still feel the difference when I visit them.  It puts the onus much more on the player to stick it out and build those lasting relationships in order to see what the game truly has to offer.  Having seen the rewards firsthand though, it makes it much harder to settle for less.
    klash2def

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • RobsolfRobsolf Grand Rapids, MIMember UncommonPosts: 4,428
    From what I saw in the "beta"(keep that in mind as I give my opinion), I'd use SWL's similar term, and call it a "shared world FPS".

    It is NOT an MMO.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,177
    Forgrimm said:
    This is an MMO. Roughly 200 players all in the same non-instanced area fighting the same world boss.




    So we're trotting out the measuring sticks, now?

    Here's 30 pilots furballing in a physics-based twitch combat MMORPG:


    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • ForgrimmForgrimm Somewhere in TimeMember EpicPosts: 2,697
    Forgrimm said:
    This is an MMO. Roughly 200 players all in the same non-instanced area fighting the same world boss.




    So we're trotting out the measuring sticks, now?

    No, just offering an example to provide some clarity to the confused people.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,177
    Forgrimm said:
    Forgrimm said:
    This is an MMO. Roughly 200 players all in the same non-instanced area fighting the same world boss.




    So we're trotting out the measuring sticks, now?

    No, just offering an example to provide some clarity to the confused people.
    Hard to believe people really would be that confused about it.  Maybe I'm just "old" (36).

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,670
    An MMO is a game that allows a massive amount of players to play the game within the same virtual world as one another. 


    You can arrive at this definition by using english comprehension on the words "massively multiplayer online". Or you arrive at this definition by reading Richard Garriott's and Raph Kosters thoughts on the subject (two of the pioneers of the genre). Or you can arrive at this definition by examining the earlier examples of MMOs. 


    Whatever way you get there, that is the definition. The problem is, there is no hard number, hence the arguments. What does "massively" mean? It is an observation of size, meaning bigger than. So, lets look at multiplayer online games. How many people do they normally support? Usually anywhere between 2 and 128 people. What number is massively bigger than 128? 

    Because massively multiplayer both has no set number and is relative to the current crop of standard multiplayer games, it is a moving target. When Garriott and Koster were first defining the genre, their number was 250. So, by their definition nearly 20 years ago, if your game could support 250 people within the same virtual environment, it was an MMO. 

    I'm not sure if 250 is "massively" bigger than 128, it's less than double, but 250 is certainly massively bigger than standard multiplayer online games from 20 years ago. I would personally say the number should be 1000, but hell, even 250 would be good these days. 



    So, if we use 250 players within the same virtual world (i.e. multiplayer), does Destiny meet the criteria? Lol, nope. The heavy use of instancing and the lobby means it is impossible to ever share the same virtual world with more than a handful of players (cap of 16 in Destiny 1?). If I want to play with a friend, we cannot just arrange a location and meet up there, because we are most likely in different virtual worlds (instances). We will have to group up via the lobby, then the game would create a new virtual world for us to inhabit. 

    The same applies to mobas. How many people can you have in the same virtual world? 6? 10?


    Please note that the definition is down to number of players within a virtual world. It does not mean you have to be able to group with with all of them at the same time. It does not mean that they all need to be on screen at the same time. Just that they exist within the same virtual environment. 

    So, LotRO for example. It is an MMO. Whilst the engine sucks with large amounts of players (50+) in the same area, if there are 1000 people connected to the server, any one of them can contact anyone else and say "lets meet here" and they will both be able to walk there, without having to change virtual worlds, and be able to see each other. The 1000 people all exist within the same virtual environment, even if they can't all fit on the screen at the same time without the game/server breaking. 



    Beyond the actual number (250-1000), the biggest grey area comes with instancing and persistence. Games like SW:TOR and ESO heavily use instancing, the first due to a shit engine, the second due to wanting a megaserver. Are these MMOs? SW:TOR only seems capable of handling about 50 people per instance and often times you can say "meet here" and it'll work because there is only one instance currently running. ESO, whilst it has bigger instances, has many more of them so it is harder. 

    I personally would say they're MMOs, simply because you can encounter 250+ real people in the game world without having to go to a lobby or manually change the virtual world you're in. However, were I a game dev I would avoid using instancing because it takes us away from the whole purpose of the genre - massively multiplayer. 


    Now, why is there such disagreement on the definition of MMO?

    1) Ignorance / stupidity - a lot of people are ignorant of the history of MMOs and thus cannot pick out the unique feature. A lot of people lack good quality english comprehension, so can't understand the words "massively multiplayer online". 

    2) Click-bait - the genre is doing badly. By all metrics available to us, the genre is in bad state. Players are leaving in droves for other genres and developers have massively scaled back dev work on new MMOs. Sites like this one and massivelyop have admittedly misusing the term MMO in order to generate traffic. If you actually look around, you will notice that the vast majority of misuse of the term comes from the media, not the players or developers. 

    3) Matching Features - MMO means one thing: number of players within a virtual environment. But MMORPG means a whole lot of other things. Look at the feature list of WoW, SW:TOR, FFXIV etc. Then look at the feature list of Destiny or The Division. Pretty damn similar right? So, why not lump them in the same genre? I mean if people like WoW, surely they'll like a game that has 90% of the same features? A lot of people do this, and the comparison is valid, however without the massive number of players, you're describing an MORPG, not an MMORPG. Its a subtle difference, but one often overlooked. 

    4) Trolling - some people just like to troll and this is an easy subject. @nariusseldon freely admits this is why he does it. You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO, instead he will just link to other sites (even ones proven to have no credibility) in order to keep the argument going. 
    GdemamiJamesGoblin
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395


    4) Trolling - some people just like to troll and this is an easy subject. @nariusseldon freely admits this is why he does it. You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO, instead he will just link to other sites (even ones proven to have no credibility) in order to keep the argument going. 
    Hey .. that is not the ONLY thing i do. I also cite you and point out your logical mistakes (like this one).

    BTW, did you just admit that what defines an MMO is based on opinions? (and i quote "You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO").

    So what is your opinion on what defines a MMO? You will answer, right, since you are not like me. And also tell me, why is your opinion superior that those that classify games in the gamelist on this site? Inquiring minds want to know.
  • ShinamiShinami Sacramento, CAMember UncommonPosts: 774
    Its not easy to set up parties of 16 - 32 players that are well geared in an MMO.
    However, its super easy to just join a shooter game that has teams of 16 - 32 players killing each other in a large map. 

    That being said. 
    I believe that it requires a MASSIVE effort and attempt to make and maintain a persistent online world, but what the player encounters 99% of the time is anything but massive. 
    JamesGoblin
  • NycteliosNyctelios Novo Hamburgo - RS - BrazilMember EpicPosts: 2,248
    I hope none of you guys are biologists or medic. I don't want someone cutting people thinking "well, anything is anything, fuck all the terminology I had to learn".

    A term is coined with a purpose. A music genre is defined by a group of features, so does game genres. Sometimes the definition is broad enough to gather lots of games with different perspectives, sometimes the definition is strict enough that does not require any other explanation.

    If I say roguelike it is roguelike. If you don't know what roguelike is stop being arrogant prick and go read what it means. 

    There is no blurry line, there is no question about what a term is - what does exist is arrogance.

    There is no blurry line in studies about how old our planet is, there is an estimate number based on evidence which requires clinical attention to become more and more specific, no matter how much noise creationists makes - that does not mean you can throw everything out of the window because someone said "the scientist are always changing stuff, they are never sure of anything!" while waving their cane around complaining about the weather.

    There is no blurry lines about the shape of our planet, no matter how much noise flat Earth theorists make. Your ignorance do not change things, stop.

    There is no blurry line about what EDM is no matter how broad the term can be. What does exist are bands which goes beyond it, requiring a more specific definition for total comprehension. A non-EDM song still a non-EDM song no matter the fact that something is "EDM plus something else". Someone putting chicken noises on the song following the concept of EDM won't change what EDM means, also won't change other EDM songs and bands, it will create a sub-genre, when such terminology deems necessary for better comprehension.

    To index something, to properly index something, is very very important for history of anything. Weapons, metallurgy, cars and so on. Why with entertainment would be different?

    I don't think the problem here is what MMO means.

    I think the real problem is that some people just can't let some things go.

    If the term is old and can't be used anymore then let it die instead of putting make up and a cheap dress just to appeal a certain audience as a bait&switch marketing thing - which is exactly what those mobas are calling themselves mmo's.
    SedrynTyrosGdemami

    " Tawnos's blueprints were critical to the creation of my armor. As he once sealed himself in steel, I sealed myself in a walking crypt. "
    —Urza

    - Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor TokyoMember UncommonPosts: 499
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  
    Nyctelios
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,766
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  
    Wait, I had been saying "Emmmo" this whole time, but it's really "M-M-O"????


    DAMN IT! ;) 
    SedrynTyrosJamesGoblin

    image
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,647
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  
    Wait, I had been saying "Emmmo" this whole time, but it's really "M-M-O"????


    DAMN IT! ;) 
    MMO is an initialism, unless you're pronouncing it like @MadFrenchie. Then it's an acronym.

    Details...details... ;-)
    PhaserlightMadFrenchie
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,399
    MMO = A game where you see a ton of players in the same city hubs, mostly AFK, lagging the hell out of you. Even with all those players, you'll most often play MMO's under solo-play for most of their progression.

    RIP.
    Excession
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,647
    Sephiroso said:
    All of you need Jesus.
    I gave up Jesus for Lent. 
    Phaserlight
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395
    Nyctelios said:
    I hope none of you guys are biologists or medic. I don't want someone cutting people thinking "well, anything is anything, fuck all the terminology I had to learn".


    wow .. you equate biologist and medic with some dudes talking about video games on the internet? LoL.

    Given that logic, why do you come to a website that has a game list that, by the opinions of many here, commit the "anything is anything" sin (unless you agree with their classification of Destiny 2 as a MMOFPS)?

    So i guess you want your medic to use accurate terminology but not your websites? 
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  

    Do you include the persons who classify games on the gamelist on this site? They classify destiny 2 as a "MMOFPS", you know. 
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor TokyoMember UncommonPosts: 499
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  
    Wait, I had been saying "Emmmo" this whole time, but it's really "M-M-O"????


    DAMN IT! ;) 
    MMO is an initialism, unless you're pronouncing it like @MadFrenchie. Then it's an acronym.

    Details...details... ;-)
    How am I just learning this now at 47 . . . emmmmmbarrasing! 
    MadFrenchiePhaserlightJamesGoblin
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,395
    I have the answer to this, and it really can't be disputed by any person in their right mind (trolls aren't people)
    MMO is an acronym  
    Wait, I had been saying "Emmmo" this whole time, but it's really "M-M-O"????


    DAMN IT! ;) 
    MMO is an initialism, unless you're pronouncing it like @MadFrenchie. Then it's an acronym.

    Details...details... ;-)
    How am I just learning this now at 47 . . . emmmmmbarrasing! 
    Don't worry. It will change again, and you can relearn it soon. 
Sign In or Register to comment.