Shared Worlds - A better and more fitting term for modern MMOs

TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYMember RarePosts: 1,996
Lets go back a bit to start with.

Asheron's Call, Everquest 1, Ultima Online...they were real MMOs. No instances, no tiny 6 player co-op groups (which isn't massively multiplayer) and everyone was part of the same world.

Today, only EVE Online and Black Desert Online and maybe a couple others fit the classic definition of MMO. No instances, can see 1000s of players around you and you can have TRUE massively multiplayer sized groups (at least for EVE). There is no shared instances, everyone is part of the same experience. Like look at GW2, it even tells you to switch instances if the instance you are in has lost too many players...that is a shared world.

Shared Worlds however fit better for most modern MMOs.

Games that fit the definition of Shared Worlds (that are relatively modern) is FFXIV, GW2, WoW, SWTOR, ESO as just many examples.

In WoW, the vast majority of your time are in 6 player sized groups and spending time in instances. Also, in WoW you aren't part of one server but multiple instances of various servers and that makes WoW the ultimate example of a game that shouldn't be considered an MMO but a Shared World.

FFXIV/GW2/SWTOR/ESO also all have instances and tiny groups. They all focus heavily on soloing, or co-op experiences. All have Co-op experiences (again like WoW has 6 player sized groups, that is a co-op experience). Games like ESO/SWTOR heavily focus on soloing most content, and the people around you could just as well be NPCs...a very fitting description of Shared Worlds. SWTOR especially is solo only from level 1 to max level, and you only share the world with others but with very limited interaction.

This solves the debate of what an MMO is and is not. Many games fit the Shared World definition, but very few games fit the classic MMO definition. In old MMOs, instances, shared servers and multiple "channels" of the zone you are in and tiny 6 player sized co-op groups was unheard of. All that makes the game a shared world. But EVE Online is truly open with no instances, huge massive groups and everyone takes part in the same server (in fact there is only 1 server) and that makes it a true MMO, and any MMOs like that a true classic MMO. Most new games are more Shared Worlds however than classic MMOs.

This should make everyone happy on all sides of the debate.

My adult gaming and mods website (various games, adult mods, screenshots, stories and other games I play(ed) 

http://nsfwgaming.wixsite.com/adultgamingandmods

And my Youtube channel (for nature/relaxation/meditation videos)

https://www.youtube.com/user/Vendayn


GdemamiAzaron_NightbladeXodicExcessionMaurgrim
«1

Comments

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYMember RarePosts: 1,996
    A perfect example of a Shared World as well, to add one last tidbit (was getting a bit long of a post above) is Star Citizen. Right now instances are tiny, but they won't ever get big even at release...maybe 100? people in each instance.

    They said they can only raise the cap as far as the game and servers can handle it, and with right now how small the instances are...it probably won't be a big difference. Definitely not on the scale of EVE Online. Star Citizen however fits perfectly in the Shared World category, whether the instance cap goes to 100 or not, it fits perfectly the shared world. (which 100 would still be VERY low, especially again compared to EVE where 1000+ people can be in the same system). Even if it capped out at 1000 player instances, if you can't see EVERYONE, that is still an instance and still fits the shared world category.

    Look at EVE, there is no system cap (it does lag though if a lot of players are in it), there are no instances or any of that junk. A true classic MMO. But more games are like Star Citizen where its a Shared World experience.

    My adult gaming and mods website (various games, adult mods, screenshots, stories and other games I play(ed) 

    http://nsfwgaming.wixsite.com/adultgamingandmods

    And my Youtube channel (for nature/relaxation/meditation videos)

    https://www.youtube.com/user/Vendayn


  • Azaron_NightbladeAzaron_Nightblade KingsmouthMember RarePosts: 4,171
    I'm okay with this. I enjoy Shared World games.

    My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)

    Feel free to send me a message if you want a guest pass to try Black Desert Online as well!

  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,037
    I agree we need a split.  I've been saying this for years. However your definition is WAY OFF.

    Hack-and-Slash-Online would be better definition of what we have now. 

    MMO's are gone, not a single one, so it's hard to split if their is nothing their !.....What your trying to do is split hack-and-slash-online into two categories.  Instanced and noninstanced. 


    I don't think anyone really likes small zones, load times and deep instanced.

    So their you have it:
    -  Hack-and-Slash-Online ( easy and solo )
    -  MMOs ( community effort )
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member UncommonPosts: 116
    They are all MMORPGs. That MMORPGs have evolved from there original form over time is to be expected and to suggest that this has made them other than what they are is simply denial by those that do not favour how that change unfolded.
  • lahnmirlahnmir UtrechtMember RarePosts: 848
    Just to spare the feelings of the hardcore MMORPG afficiendos I can live with the term. I like to have cake AND eat it.

    Referring to Hack n slash games is nonsense, you mean third person action games I think.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,241
    It's been MMOs for decades and there's no need to redefine things because of just that. Or because you have to put garbage that can be played online somewhere.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,037
    lahnmir said:
    Just to spare the feelings of the hardcore MMORPG afficiendos I can live with the term. I like to have cake AND eat it.

    Referring to Hack n slash games is nonsense, you mean third person action games I think.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir

    Well, I could almost agree to not split the definition.  I think it should, but I could respect those who don't. BUT if it were: 

    -  Hack-and Slash-Online (everything) 
    -  MMO (none) 

    If your all geared up at level 27, how many mobs can you take on solo, 10, 15 maybe 20.  Why even craft in Hack-and-Slash-Online ?..... Why even have a health meter, your health bar never goes down. 

    See Joe over there ?.... He doesn't need any help, he's hacking and slashing by himself.
     
    mmo my butt !
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 16,526
    Call it cheesy potato worlds, or whatever else you want.

    Imma play em if they are fun.
    Azaron_NightbladeTorval
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 16,526
    edited September 8
    Just for the fun of argument - 

    What precise criteria would you use for a "shared world" game?  

    What if the game has both open non-instanced world AND instanced dungeons or instaneced zones? What would you call it then? 

    You name ESO as "shared world" - Cyrodiil can support as many players as EQ1 zones did. I mean what part of ESO do you want to focus on to describe "all of it" ?

    So EQ1 is a shared world game too?

    Also OP says "many game fit shared world defintion" - umm ALL MMO and MMORPGs fit into it - as you can say that EvE is also a shared world game, so is EQ1, and Asheron's Call etc... - the players share the same world.

    Earth is a shared world - humans share it with other living organisms.

    Shared world is an all encompassing term - so I fail to see how it helps narrow things down.

    It's like saying - we need to classify humans better - lets use the world mammals!

    Ummm....
    Post edited by DMKano on
    Excession
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,037
    DMKano said:
    Call it cheesy potato worlds, or whatever else you want.

    Imma play em if they are fun.

    This is truly great, I really wish you the best :) 

    I wish we could have at least one mmo where you have to think and build your character.  Study and use percentages.  Make your self different from the other Warlocks or Rangers.  I would like to say " I'll not last if I try that, but let me try ".  Craft where what you made will last six or seven levels before your finding it's just not good enough any more, time to make a new one.

    I would like to be level 27 for a few days and get a new ability on Thursday that would re-direct my entire strategy.  Now, I have to go off by myself and figure out my new style of fighting.

    It would be nice to know I have to have several different ways of fighting.

    one for when I start the fight
    one if I'll be fighting a caster 
    one for when I get jumped by a mob of 4
    one for playing with others  

    I would like to THINK at least a little bit...... Just one mmo, ONE !

  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastMember UncommonPosts: 2,065
    MOG is the term you are looking for.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKMember LegendaryPosts: 16,526
    DMKano said:
    Call it cheesy potato worlds, or whatever else you want.

    Imma play em if they are fun.

    This is truly great, I really wish you the best :) 

    I wish we could have at least one mmo where you have to think and build your character.  Study and use percentages.  Make your self different from the other Warlocks or Rangers.  I would like to say " I'll not last if I try that, but let me try ".  Craft where what you made will last six or seven levels before your finding it's just not good enough any more, time to make a new one.

    I would like to be level 27 for a few days and get a new ability on Thursday that would re-direct my entire strategy.  Now, I have to go off by myself and figure out my new style of fighting.

    It would be nice to know I have to have several different ways of fighting.

    one for when I start the fight
    one if I'll be fighting a caster 
    one for when I get jumped by a mob of 4
    one for playing with others  

    I would like to THINK at least a little bit...... Just one mmo, ONE !


    Yeah I'd like that too.

    I'd also love to fly a Pegasus around the world and have the Swedish Bikini team as my personal assistants.

    But - you know what reality is a bitch, as there is no such thing as flying Pegasus and there is no such game that you describe.

    So... I'm gonna enjoy reality instead of wishing for what's not there.
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member UncommonPosts: 116

    I would like to be level 27 for a few days and get a new ability on Thursday that would re-direct my entire strategy.  Now, I have to go off by myself and figure out my new style of fighting.

    It would be nice to know I have to have several different ways of fighting.

    one for when I start the fight
    one if I'll be fighting a caster 
    one for when I get jumped by a mob of 4
    one for playing with others  

    I would like to THINK at least a little bit...... Just one mmo, ONE !

    If you want depth your best bet is to look at games from the past still running rather than seek it in those of the present or hope for it in the future.

    They predate the trend toward simplification going on for some time now.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,742
    Imo this term won't catch-up. MMO is short, simple and convenient.

    There is no need for more labels, afterall that is why the meaning of the original term broadened up.
    IselinExcession
  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,557
    I disagree. 

    The term MMO is purely about the number of people within the same virtual environment. That number is up for debate - Richard Garriott and Raph Koster originally put it at 250 people - but whatever number you settle on doesn't matter too much, as long as it is massively bigger than average online multiplayer games. 

    So, if someone released an online shooter that supported 500 player maps, that would be an MMO, even though the world was not persistent and was just an instance. If someone released a new moba that supported 200v200 maps, that would be an MMO. 



    What you are trying to do is create new classifications for online RPGs, as best I can tell. We could potentially make use of such new genres, but I wouldn't use "shared world" as a term as it is pretty meaningless. I also don't think the distinction you are trying to make (100% persistent open world game vs one with instances) is even that important, given how few games exist within the genre. 

    There is only one new classification that I would introduce: selectively multiplayer online. 

    We already have MMOG - massively multiplayer online games - meaning the game supports a massive amount of players within the same virtual environment connected via the internet. WoW, ESO, FFXIV, EvE all fit this category. The online component is mandatory to play the game. 

    We already have MOG - multiplayer online games - meaning the same as MMOG, just less players within the same virtual environment. This is where Destiny, The Division, LoL, DotA2 etc fit. Again, the online component is mandatory. 

    Then, I'd like to see SMOG - selectively multiplayer online games - meaning that the game can be played offline solo, but if you choose to then you can also play it online with other people. This is where games like Diablo 3 would fit, potentially GTAV too. If any of you have played Xenoblade Chronicles X, this is the category that game would fit into too. 



    From there, you just need to classify the game - the "G" part. We already have MMORPG, MMOFPS, MOBA etc. But, it sounds like you'd like to break it up further so that it is easier to spot the features just from the genre. 

    So, MMOPRPG - persistent RPG - would be used to classify games where everything is persistent, i.e. no instances. Then MMOIRPG - instanced RPG - would be used to classify games that mix instances and persistent zones. Do you then want to add more acronyms for sandbox vs themepark? 

    Again, I don't think it's worth it. Differentiating between persistent or instanced is only important if that persistence has gameplay implications. Something like LotRO has persistent zones - the majority of the game is persistent - and it only spins up new layers if a zone is overcrowded. But do those persistent zones matter? Players cannot alter the zones, they cannot build there, influence factions or perma-kill bosses, so the persistence has zero effect on gameplay. Compare that to something like SWG where players can build cities, the persistence is critical to the functioning of the game. 

    Then, think about the upcoming Crowfall and the Eternal Kingdoms. Those are instanced and, iirc, will have player caps, but they are also persistent. 


    I think we already have enough words to describe sub-genres of RPGs that we don't need to create more. Sandbox vs themepark. Open world versus linear. ARPG / CRPG. First person vs third person. Solo versus companions. Rogue-likes. Tactical RPGs....
    Gdemami
  • mgilbrtsnmgilbrtsn belleville, ILMember RarePosts: 3,026
    I can back this.  Although you ruined your argument at the very end 'This should make everyone happy on all sides of the debate.'  This forum is incapable of agreeing much less being happy about something en-mass. 

    Azaron_Nightblade

    Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.

  • kjempffkjempff Member UncommonPosts: 1,269
    The idea is ok but still a bit flawed, and I am not a fan of the naming.
    The definition is maybe too technical, leaving many games in a grey zone.

    How about turning it upside down? Forget about the mmo definition battle, however correct you are it can not be won. Instead of genre labelling we could use attributes to describe games. Mmo can no longer be used as a genre definition because the games are vastly different, but you can't get rid of the term, and you can't really subdefine them either because many are a mix of several subdefinitions. 
    So lets use attributes instead, and the set of attributes will describe a game.

    Some examples could be (totally not thought through):
    Virtual world, lobby based, story driven, action, builder maybe sandbox, co-op, pvp, skill based (player skill rather than character skill), ...uhm probably better and more precise attribute descriptors out there so shoot.

    Well anyways..


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,154
    mgilbrtsn said:
    I can back this.  Although you ruined your argument at the very end 'This should make everyone happy on all sides of the debate.'  This forum is incapable of agreeing much less being happy about something en-mass. 
    I think the forum would disagree just for the sake of arguing even if they agreed and liked it.
    mgilbrtsnAzaron_NightbladeDMKano
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,154
    DMKano said:
    Call it cheesy potato worlds, or whatever else you want.

    Imma play em if they are fun.
    People get so hung up on semantics.
    SovrathAzaron_NightbladeDMKano
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 3,984
    It is time to stop being so aggressively defensive of what one MMO stands for, more and more games see Shared Worlds as an approach that works to provide worlds with thousands of players yet handled by many different servers and capped at how many players can persist in the same area.

    It's a large-scale compartmentalized MP game.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,037
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Call it cheesy potato worlds, or whatever else you want.

    Imma play em if they are fun.

    This is truly great, I really wish you the best :) 

    I wish we could have at least one mmo where you have to think and build your character.  Study and use percentages.  Make your self different from the other Warlocks or Rangers.  I would like to say " I'll not last if I try that, but let me try ".  Craft where what you made will last six or seven levels before your finding it's just not good enough any more, time to make a new one.

    I would like to be level 27 for a few days and get a new ability on Thursday that would re-direct my entire strategy.  Now, I have to go off by myself and figure out my new style of fighting.

    It would be nice to know I have to have several different ways of fighting.

    one for when I start the fight
    one if I'll be fighting a caster 
    one for when I get jumped by a mob of 4
    one for playing with others  

    I would like to THINK at least a little bit...... Just one mmo, ONE !


    Yeah I'd like that too.

    I'd also love to fly a Pegasus around the world and have the Swedish Bikini team as my personal assistants.

    But - you know what reality is a bitch, as there is no such thing as flying Pegasus and there is no such game that you describe.

    So... I'm gonna enjoy reality instead of wishing for what's not there.

    Well, I see what your driving at here. 

    By your little Pegasus story, your using it as an example that I made up at fantasy mmo custom made to fit my likes only.  But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo. 

    Just one !
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,701
      But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo. 

    Just one !
    But that's based on your opinion as well as, perhaps, a style that is no longer of interest to most developers.

    Some people would assert that Star Wars Galaxies was a "real mmo" yet a friend who played it thought that it was horrible and felt like a 2nd job. Yet he loved the original everquest.

    Kano has a point, one could spend their lives complaining or they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find something enjoyable in the available offerings. Or just do something else.


    Torval



  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,037
    Sovrath said:
      But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo. 

    Just one !
    But that's based on your opinion as well as, perhaps, a style that is no longer of interest to most developers.

    Some people would assert that Star Wars Galaxies was a "real mmo" yet a friend who played it thought that it was horrible and felt like a 2nd job. Yet he loved the original everquest.

    Kano has a point, one could spend their lives complaining or they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find something enjoyable in the available offerings. Or just do something else.



    Yes, this is true. You could have all kind of variables.

    Likes and dislikes in styles.  If we had just one it may not be the one for me or maybe it's not the one for you.  I didn't like FF11 at all, but I did like EQ2. I'm sure during this time in history we all had our likes and dislikes....But now we don't have any.

    What I'm saying we don't have even one !

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 22,701
    Sovrath said:
      But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo. 

    Just one !
    But that's based on your opinion as well as, perhaps, a style that is no longer of interest to most developers.

    Some people would assert that Star Wars Galaxies was a "real mmo" yet a friend who played it thought that it was horrible and felt like a 2nd job. Yet he loved the original everquest.

    Kano has a point, one could spend their lives complaining or they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find something enjoyable in the available offerings. Or just do something else.



    Yes, this is true. You could have all kind of variables.

    Likes and dislikes in styles.  If we had just one it may not be the one for me or maybe it's not the one for you.  I didn't like FF11 at all, but I did like EQ2. I'm sure during this time in history we all had our likes and dislikes....But now we don't have any.

    What I'm saying we don't have even one !

    Well, they are still out there. EQ is still there, Ultima is there ... I suppose they aren't in the same shape as they started but I wonder if they didn't change if players would be interested? some I suppose.

    Well, we'll see if Pantheon launches and see how that goes.
    Torval



  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,154
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
      But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo. 

    Just one !
    But that's based on your opinion as well as, perhaps, a style that is no longer of interest to most developers.

    Some people would assert that Star Wars Galaxies was a "real mmo" yet a friend who played it thought that it was horrible and felt like a 2nd job. Yet he loved the original everquest.

    Kano has a point, one could spend their lives complaining or they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find something enjoyable in the available offerings. Or just do something else.



    Yes, this is true. You could have all kind of variables.

    Likes and dislikes in styles.  If we had just one it may not be the one for me or maybe it's not the one for you.  I didn't like FF11 at all, but I did like EQ2. I'm sure during this time in history we all had our likes and dislikes....But now we don't have any.

    What I'm saying we don't have even one !

    Well, they are still out there. EQ is still there, Ultima is there ... I suppose they aren't in the same shape as they started but I wonder if they didn't change if players would be interested? some I suppose.

    Well, we'll see if Pantheon launches and see how that goes.

    What are players going to do when Pantheon and all these reboots hit their first major franchise expansion and the game changes? That's the part I'm going to watch closely. Are the studios going to repeat themselves? How will players react? That's assuming the whole retro thing goes over as hoped. I think it can, but I could be seeing what I want to.
Sign In or Register to comment.