Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

This game is not a real MMORPG! So what is a real MMORPG?

CalerxesCalerxes LondonPosts: 1,630Member Uncommon

After being through a few MMO releases over the past 5 years I've heard this phrase used many many times and its been cropping up again in the SW:TOR forum. But everyone that uses it has a different idea of what a real MMORPG is it can be a sandbox like UO or a heavily group grinding based game like Everquest or a hybrid of the two like Asherons Call or a three faction PvP game like DAOC or a quest heavy game like World Of Warcraft and Everquest 2 or inter-corporation polictics, exploration, galactic PVP game as in  EVE. Now as I wasn't there at the creation of the graphical Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game as I came in in 2007 I wonder was there an actual template that defines what a real MMORPG is or is this just a meaningless phrease used to denegrate modern "MMORPG's"?

 

Personally I've had some great experiences in modern MMORPG's that I could not get in any other type of online game like the feeling I'm immersed in an online world with thousands of other players, (when I first played WoW I wanted to explore all the world do all the quests and play with as many people as I could, same with EQ2 and now SW:TOR), roleplaying with others has been a surprisingly enjoyable experience, crafting objects that are actually useful and needed by my guild or friends in game, going on adventures around the world with others and having to be organised in a team to survive what ever the world threw at us, being a successful trader within a real economy, having a home that I can hang my treasures and trophies the list goes on. So now I'm thinking I've never actually played a real MMORPG and I'm wondering what else is there other than going full simulation like Wurm Online. 

 

We all seem to have different ideas of what makes an MMORPG and the "its not a real MMORPG" seems to come from disgrungled vets who have seen the genre evolve away from what they imagined it would be a decade or so ago, but that happens with entertainment and Art in general.  Thomas Edison said about his new invention “I don’t want the phonograph sold for amusement purposes. It is not a toy. It is for business purposes only.” what would he think about the iPod and I feel that many of the users of this "its not a real MMORPG"  phrase feel the same about there precious MMORPG games.

 

In SW:TOR I feel much more immersed in the world around me than I have with previous games, it has come alive with a myriad of different characters and places to meet and see that it makes me want to see and hear it all just like WoW and EQ2 and when I'm grouped it feels like I'm in an adventure film with all the dialogue choices and fast paced action. But it is to some a lobby based dungeon/quest/PvP grinder though I feel I'm playing a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game with all the different people to play with and against, places to see and things to do and with game dev's only having a certain amount of time, resources and funds I understand that no game is going to be all things to all men but why do players think that they should be? surely there is an MMORPG out there for you and if not patience is a virtue you know, there are plentry of other things to fill your time rather than bemoaning the demise of the genre. 

This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up™ the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.

«13

Comments

  • TealaTeala SomewherePosts: 7,430Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Calerxes

    After being through a few MMO releases over the past 5 years I've heard this phrase used many many times and its been cropping up again in the SW:TOR forum. But everyone that uses it has a different idea of what a real MMORPG is it can be a sandbox like UO or a heavily group grinding based game like Everquest or a hybrid of the two like Asherons Call or a three faction PvP game like DAOC or a quest heavy game like World Of Warcraft and Everquest 2 or inter-corporation polictics, exploration, galactic PVP game as in  EVE. Now as I wasn't there at the creation of the graphical Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game as I came in in 2007 I wonder was there an actual template that defines what a real MMORPG is or is this just a meaningless phrease used to denegrate modern "MMORPG's"?

     

    Personally I've had some great experiences in modern MMORPG's that I could not get in any other type of online game like the feeling I'm immersed in an online world with thousands of other players, (when I first played WoW I wanted to explore all the world do all the quests and play with as many people as I could, same with EQ2 and now SW:TOR), roleplaying with others has been a surprisingly enjoyable experience, crafting objects that are actually useful and needed by my guild or friends in game, going on adventures around the world with others and having to be organised in a team to survive what ever the world threw at us, being a successful trader within a real economy, having a home that I can hang my treasures and trophies the list goes on. So now I'm thinking I've never actually played a real MMORPG and I'm wondering what else is there other than going full simulation like Wurm Online. 

     

    We all seem to have different ideas of what makes an MMORPG and the "its not a real MMORPG" seems to come from disgrungled vets who have seen the genre evolve away from what they imagined it would be a decade or so ago, but that happens with entertainment and Art in general.  Thomas Edison said about his new invention “I don’t want the phonograph sold for amusement purposes. It is not a toy. It is for business purposes only.” what would he think about the iPod and I feel that many of the users of this "its not a real MMORPG"  phrase feel the same about there precious MMORPG games.

     

    In SW:TOR I feel much more immersed in the world around me than I have with previous games, it has come alive with a myriad of different characters and places to meet and see that it makes me want to see and hear it all just like WoW and EQ2 and when I'm grouped it feels like I'm in an adventure film with all the dialogue choices and fast paced action. But it is to some a lobby based dungeon/quest/PvP grinder though I feel I'm playing a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game with all the different people to play with and against, places to see and things to do and with game dev's only having a certain amount of time, resources and funds I understand that no game is going to be all things to all men but why do players think that they should be? surely there is an MMORPG out there for you and if not patience is a virtue you know, there are plentry of other things to fill your time rather than bemoaning the demise of the genre. 

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    image
  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Somewhere Out There, PAPosts: 2,320Member Uncommon

    Not to offend, but these threads are as bad as the people behind this argument. They're trolling, and you're giving them even more bait. I've a lot of criticism about SWTOR, but I do think it is an MMO, potentially even a good one, even if I actually find it boring.

    Most people who use the argument "it's not a reall MMO" are hiding behind the MMO standards up to this point, that's all really. They're not giving valid criticism, they don't even really mean what they're saying. They don't like something, and because they can't better articulate what it is they don't like without sounding like a troll, they start telling you why it's not an MMO. These same people will turn around and complain a thread later that MMOs are stagnating and no one is trying to do anything new.

    Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. Is it massive? It has multiplayer? It's online and an RPG? Well, I guess it's an MMO. You don't have to love it, or even like it. It is what it is, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. Not unless they want to redefine those particular words in the English language. Better not to give silly arguments the time of day, turning the other cheek is at times the better option.

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • HerodesHerodes DannenbergPosts: 1,494Member

    Goebel

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member

    MMORPG seems to mean whatever people wish it to mean :)

    Personally, I have a very broad and general definition in mind when I read that term. Lots of people playing an online rolelplaying game by developing their character. By lots, I would say over 1000. I don't know if I can justify getting any more specific than that.

    I think what is happening now-a-days is that phasing and instancing is taking place where not as many players are in "the same" instance or phase and people seem to be getting their panties in a wad. Servers did the same thing, even more severely, but that was OK.

    Phasing and instancing (two different game mechanics) have both good and bad aspects, in my opinion. Phasing helps control the population, but sometimes it controls it too much, sometimes making the area one is in seem desolate, or devoid of other players. Instancing helps in storyline quests where the player is the focus and also in asset management like dungeons. Again, This can sometimes lead to a feeling of "alone-ness" in a supposedly massively multi-player game. The two mechanics can help a player's gaming experience be more enjoyable, though, by getting rid of fighting over the same game assets with other players.

    People do tend to have their own definition of what MMORPG means, so these comments will always be prevalent.

    - 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

  • SepulcherSepulcher Phoenix, AZPosts: 216Member

    Originally posted by Teala

    Originally posted by Calerxes

    After being through a few MMO releases over the past 5 years I've heard this phrase used many many times and its been cropping up again in the SW:TOR forum. But everyone that uses it has a different idea of what a real MMORPG is it can be a sandbox like UO or a heavily group grinding based game like Everquest or a hybrid of the two like Asherons Call or a three faction PvP game like DAOC or a quest heavy game like World Of Warcraft and Everquest 2 or inter-corporation polictics, exploration, galactic PVP game as in  EVE. Now as I wasn't there at the creation of the graphical Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game as I came in in 2007 I wonder was there an actual template that defines what a real MMORPG is or is this just a meaningless phrease used to denegrate modern "MMORPG's"?

     

    Personally I've had some great experiences in modern MMORPG's that I could not get in any other type of online game like the feeling I'm immersed in an online world with thousands of other players, (when I first played WoW I wanted to explore all the world do all the quests and play with as many people as I could, same with EQ2 and now SW:TOR), roleplaying with others has been a surprisingly enjoyable experience, crafting objects that are actually useful and needed by my guild or friends in game, going on adventures around the world with others and having to be organised in a team to survive what ever the world threw at us, being a successful trader within a real economy, having a home that I can hang my treasures and trophies the list goes on. So now I'm thinking I've never actually played a real MMORPG and I'm wondering what else is there other than going full simulation like Wurm Online. 

     

    We all seem to have different ideas of what makes an MMORPG and the "its not a real MMORPG" seems to come from disgrungled vets who have seen the genre evolve away from what they imagined it would be a decade or so ago, but that happens with entertainment and Art in general.  Thomas Edison said about his new invention “I don’t want the phonograph sold for amusement purposes. It is not a toy. It is for business purposes only.” what would he think about the iPod and I feel that many of the users of this "its not a real MMORPG"  phrase feel the same about there precious MMORPG games.

     

    In SW:TOR I feel much more immersed in the world around me than I have with previous games, it has come alive with a myriad of different characters and places to meet and see that it makes me want to see and hear it all just like WoW and EQ2 and when I'm grouped it feels like I'm in an adventure film with all the dialogue choices and fast paced action. But it is to some a lobby based dungeon/quest/PvP grinder though I feel I'm playing a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game with all the different people to play with and against, places to see and things to do and with game dev's only having a certain amount of time, resources and funds I understand that no game is going to be all things to all men but why do players think that they should be? surely there is an MMORPG out there for you and if not patience is a virtue you know, there are plentry of other things to fill your time rather than bemoaning the demise of the genre. 

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    That Tesla comment offends me.  You obvious have no idea anything about the man and just watched the Prestige one too many times.

    His name is Nikola Tesla, not Nicolas Tesla.  Edison did not steal his ideas, they were adversaries because Edison was promoting direct current (DC) and Tesla was promoting alternating current (AC).  So just stop.

    OP:  Since the term "Massively" has no qualifying quantity it could mean anything from two to 2 billion.  So any online game that supports more than one player could qualify as an MMO since the last two parts "multiplayer" and "online" have been satisied and the first part, as stated above has no guidelines.

  • dannydeucedannydeuce Sterling heights, MIPosts: 310Member

    Originally posted by Teala

     

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    Talk about proving his point absolutely perfectly.   Everyone that claims this mmo and that mmo is not an mmo always lack any substance in regards to the why.   "It's not an mmo, trust me" is so cliche.

    Anyways...

    Well said OP...that was a written and I agree pretty much with everything you said.  If a game has the majority of the criteria that an MMO should have than by golly...it's an MMO.  For instance, a game needs to be massive, online, an rpg and other misc. shenanigins such as avatar driven, social interactions, character progression, updated with some regularity (the fee's man!), etc etc...

    The whole concept of sandbox games being real mmos and instances destroying mmos/not making them mmo's is an absolute thing of the past.  People need to understand that instances are required now based on populations, server stability, and most importantly...the change in the general consumers wants and needs in regards to mmo's.  If 100 happy "new" to the genre players start playing there game and 1 hardcore, old school gamer quits...well you get my drift.

     

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Who cares.

    Let's talk about specific games instead.

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    The distinction many people make is that mmorpg means massively multiplayer role playing game.

    There are several reasons modern mmorpgs can be said not to qualify:

    Massively-Many modern mmorpgs have what could be considered massive worlds. They are massive games. But massively is an adverb which means it applies to the nearest adjective. In this case that would be multiplayer.

    Massively Multiplayer. Many people disagree about what this term means. Some say WoW is massively multiplayer because there are thousands of players in the game.

    In general multiplayer games are distinguinsed from coop in that in multiplayer at least 2 teams, sometimes more, of players compete against each other to win. An example would be the multiplayer aspect of Warcraft. Coop is a specific aspect of multiplayer which usually allows 2 or more players working together against the environment. One could argue that WoW is coop. Although in general a lot of work done is WoW is solo, that in itself doesn't totally disqualify it. However 2-25 player coop, especially when 90% of players don't pariticipate in a 25 man raids as a major part of their experience, does not fit the bill of massively multiplayer.

    Well then the next argument advocated is that there is the auction house. Does buying on the auction house constitute a significant multiplayer experience? Do you know the name of that player? Do you often buy from the same person more than once? Do you even talk to that person? How is that more of an mmo than farmville? Are we claiming that mmorpg covers games like farmville?

    Roleplay-

    Where is the roleplay? With names like Marshmallow Toaster Panda and xxElite Ninjax are we really claiming that fits in with the theme and world of WoW? SWTOR? Guildwars? Guildnames follow similar trends. Compared to PnP roleplaying games is there significant activity in this area?

    Is the story really so real? If you kill the same boss like 50 times, and meanwhile 50000 other people in 5000000 separate 5-10 man instances killed that boss are killing that boss all at the same time? Of course that is more like another argument for small scale coop vs massively multiplayer.

    If the term is so broad that essentially any online game with a large user base qualifies, does the word itself even mean anything? You asked us what is a real mmorpg. I ask you, what isn't?

    How are modern mmorpgs any different from lobby based instance games like diablo? How many people considered Diablo2 an mmorpg when it came out? Nowadays not only diablo 3 but also diablo 2 are more or less the same gameplay experience as multiplayer WoW, except for battle grounds. Battlegrounds are just mobas. Multiplayer, check, online, check, battle arena, check. Moba minigames.

    You might disagree, and thats fine. I still enjoyed playing WoW, and GW, and even cheap free to play games. No one is really arguing that those are not well made, successful, good games. Just that the spirit of mmorpgs has been lost.

    Yes they are convenient, yes more people can be brought into games which are more solo pug and casual friendly. How is that an argument for games being true to the spirit of the MMO, or even the RPG?

    This is the sort of mainstream populist colonialism that has rich subby kids convinced that they are hardcore punk because they listen to the latest Reliant K or New Found Glory album. Please.

  • SereliskSerelisk somewhere, NYPosts: 836Member

    Originally posted by gaeanprayer

    Not to offend, but these threads are as bad as the people behind this argument. They're trolling, and you're giving them even more bait. I've a lot of criticism about SWTOR, but I do think it is an MMO, potentially even a good one, even if I actually find it boring.

    Most people who use the argument "it's not a reall MMO" are hiding behind the MMO standards up to this point, that's all really. They're not giving valid criticism, they don't even really mean what they're saying. They don't like something, and because they can't better articulate what it is they don't like without sounding like a troll, they start telling you why it's not an MMO. These same people will turn around and complain a thread later that MMOs are stagnating and no one is trying to do anything new.

    Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. Is it massive? It has multiplayer? It's online and an RPG? Well, I guess it's an MMO. You don't have to love it, or even like it. It is what it is, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. Not unless they want to redefine those particular words in the English language. Better not to give silly arguments the time of day, turning the other cheek is at times the better option.

    You cannot use that as a warrant; that's precisely where the disagreements occur. I'm not necessarily saying there's any credible weight behind any particular person's opinion, but if they have don't think the game's massive and they don't think the game does much in the way of multiplayer, then there's certainly no reason for these people to categorize a game as a massively multiplayer one.

    Those are also not seperate terms for a lot of people. Considering the acronym's actually massively multiplayer, many people aren't super enthused when the multiplayer doesn't have a massive portion to it. The game world can't just be big, the multiplayer needs to be prominent as well. There's also discourse between the philosophies of game design that goes into making an MMO. While some people prefer the interactions between the playerbase to be massively competetive, like the Sandbox, EVE for example, others want it to be more cooperative, enter GW2. And then there's more players who're just fed up with the way "MMO's" are being designed. The World of Warcraft style questing actively discourages interaction between the playerbase. Even on the same faction. These would be the type of people who'll spit at the notion of players being comfortable with just others being around them, and not actually playing with them. And that's opinion. I can very well see a mindset where, if players don't believe the game has a very intergrated, complex and fun in-game economy, and you'll never see instances of multiplayer exceed 32 players, then what makes this game more of an MMOG than, say, Battlefield 3 which has 64 player multiplayer on extremely large maps.

    I can list more reasons why people wouldn't call it an MMO, but you've already seen all of them on this forum before. What I'm getting at is that the degree to which people consider a game "massively multiplayer" varies greatly. It's subjective. You can say that's obvious, and I didn't accomplish much, but that's what this comes down to. Everyone's measuring with a different stick. That's why they won't consider certain games MMO's.

     

    I don't even want to get into the classification of RPG, because that has far more weight than just MMO. I'm commenting soley on the massively side of this, so it can apply to just about every MMOG.

  • TealaTeala SomewherePosts: 7,430Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Sepulcher

    Originally posted by Teala


    Originally posted by Calerxes

    After being through a few MMO releases over the past 5 years I've heard this phrase used many many times and its been cropping up again in the SW:TOR forum. But everyone that uses it has a different idea of what a real MMORPG is it can be a sandbox like UO or a heavily group grinding based game like Everquest or a hybrid of the two like Asherons Call or a three faction PvP game like DAOC or a quest heavy game like World Of Warcraft and Everquest 2 or inter-corporation polictics, exploration, galactic PVP game as in  EVE. Now as I wasn't there at the creation of the graphical Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game as I came in in 2007 I wonder was there an actual template that defines what a real MMORPG is or is this just a meaningless phrease used to denegrate modern "MMORPG's"?

     

    Personally I've had some great experiences in modern MMORPG's that I could not get in any other type of online game like the feeling I'm immersed in an online world with thousands of other players, (when I first played WoW I wanted to explore all the world do all the quests and play with as many people as I could, same with EQ2 and now SW:TOR), roleplaying with others has been a surprisingly enjoyable experience, crafting objects that are actually useful and needed by my guild or friends in game, going on adventures around the world with others and having to be organised in a team to survive what ever the world threw at us, being a successful trader within a real economy, having a home that I can hang my treasures and trophies the list goes on. So now I'm thinking I've never actually played a real MMORPG and I'm wondering what else is there other than going full simulation like Wurm Online. 

     

    We all seem to have different ideas of what makes an MMORPG and the "its not a real MMORPG" seems to come from disgrungled vets who have seen the genre evolve away from what they imagined it would be a decade or so ago, but that happens with entertainment and Art in general.  Thomas Edison said about his new invention “I don’t want the phonograph sold for amusement purposes. It is not a toy. It is for business purposes only.” what would he think about the iPod and I feel that many of the users of this "its not a real MMORPG"  phrase feel the same about there precious MMORPG games.

     

    In SW:TOR I feel much more immersed in the world around me than I have with previous games, it has come alive with a myriad of different characters and places to meet and see that it makes me want to see and hear it all just like WoW and EQ2 and when I'm grouped it feels like I'm in an adventure film with all the dialogue choices and fast paced action. But it is to some a lobby based dungeon/quest/PvP grinder though I feel I'm playing a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game with all the different people to play with and against, places to see and things to do and with game dev's only having a certain amount of time, resources and funds I understand that no game is going to be all things to all men but why do players think that they should be? surely there is an MMORPG out there for you and if not patience is a virtue you know, there are plentry of other things to fill your time rather than bemoaning the demise of the genre. 

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    That Tesla comment offends me.  You obvious have no idea anything about the man and just watched the Prestige one too many times.

    His name is Nikola Tesla, not Nicolas Tesla.  Edison did not steal his ideas, they were adversaries because Edison was promoting direct current (DC) and Tesla was promoting alternating current (AC).  So just stop.

    OP:  Since the term "Massively" has no qualifying quantity it could mean anything from two to 2 billion.  So any online game that supports more than one player could qualify as an MMO since the last two parts "multiplayer" and "online" have been satisied and the first part, as stated above has no guidelines.



    You are right I mispelled his name, for that I am sorry, it is Nikola Tesla, as for the other part no I am not wrong.   Tesla worked for Edison.   Edison had many people that worked for him and he claimed their work for his own.  That is one of the reasons why Tesla left Edison.

    image
  • Squal'ZellSqual'Zell Montreal, QCPosts: 1,803Member

    MMORPG for me, meaning my opinion, and it will be my criteria to decide if i will or will not play that game

    1. open world acceccible by anyone, anytime, without instancing, without instant travel

    reason: makes it more immersive to play when not only can you kill monsters, but you also have to deal with competition, its like a form of pvp without the bloodshed, well maybe a bit of blodshed... ok maybe alot...:), also, interacive environment, cuting down trees building cities, etc... is not necessary but a bonus.

    2. player interdependency (meaning it's impossible to play alone, and im not talking about grouping and soloing, im talking about professions, see point 3)

    reason:  you are playing a multiplayer, so its only normal that you would have to interact with others. and not soully on coop missions or competitive missions, but also in business, marketing, doctoring, harvesting. again its more in the immersion that if you want a gun you would go to a gunsmith, if you want armor you would go to an armorsmith, you are wounded you would go to a doctor, etc

    3. different viable gaming professions. (meaning that it's not just combat that is required to play, i should be able to play the game without having to fire a single shot, and to those who want to use it as a facebook with high end graphics, can make it a perfectly playale style) 

    reason: some people dont want to only fight large monsters, they want to be part of the world. they want to make a difference without the violence. back in SWG pre-cu i used to be a rifleman, but at some point i decided hey lets check out the doctor profession in its pure state, and the path to actually becomming not just a normal doctor but a daned good one was actually fun, as a doctor you had to look for very specific  ingredients, create components, experiment on those components, and finally create wound packs, etc... 

    4. Player Run Economy. (and everything surrounding its mechanics, such as decay, and player crafter shit)

    goes without saying,and on par with point 2

    now games to be considered true MMORPGs (IN MY OPINION, and i will only name them as such) if they meet those criteria

    "live the best saga ever told, YOURS" those words should define an MMORPG.

     

    image
    image

  • SepulcherSepulcher Phoenix, AZPosts: 216Member

    That Tesla comment offends me.  You obvious have no idea anything about the man and just watched the Prestige one too many times.

    His name is Nikola Tesla, not Nicolas Tesla.  Edison did not steal his ideas, they were adversaries because Edison was promoting direct current (DC) and Tesla was promoting alternating current (AC).  So just stop.

    OP:  Since the term "Massively" has no qualifying quantity it could mean anything from two to 2 billion.  So any online game that supports more than one player could qualify as an MMO since the last two parts "multiplayer" and "online" have been satisied and the first part, as stated above has no guidelines.



    You are right I mispelled his name, for that I am sorry, it is Nikola Tesla, as for the other part no I am not wrong.   Tesla worked for Edison.   Edison had many people that worked for him and he claimed their work for his own.  That is one of the reasons why Tesla left Edison.

    The begining of the issues between Tesla and Edison was when Edison promised Tesla a lot of money if he could improve Edisons motors and generators.  Later Edison said it was a joke.  Now this is according to Tesla, so who knows what really happened.  Tesla resigned not because of this, but because he was refused a raise after he was refused his large payment.  He ended up working for Edison anyway, albeit as a laborer, until he founded his own company around a year later. 

    Now Edison is an ass, since reportedly he spent alot of effort discrediting Tesla.  Whether or not he "stole" Tesla's ideas or Tesla felt his ideas were worth more than he was being paid is pure speculation.  Either way he was an employee and when you work for someone to do a job they own the results.  Its like saying you get to keep the money in the cash register because you sold the product to the customer, even though it isn't your store.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 20,008Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Teala

    Originally posted by Sepulcher


    Originally posted by Teala


    Originally posted by Calerxes

    After being through a few MMO releases over the past 5 years I've heard this phrase used many many times and its been cropping up again in the SW:TOR forum. But everyone that uses it has a different idea of what a real MMORPG is it can be a sandbox like UO or a heavily group grinding based game like Everquest or a hybrid of the two like Asherons Call or a three faction PvP game like DAOC or a quest heavy game like World Of Warcraft and Everquest 2 or inter-corporation polictics, exploration, galactic PVP game as in  EVE. Now as I wasn't there at the creation of the graphical Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game as I came in in 2007 I wonder was there an actual template that defines what a real MMORPG is or is this just a meaningless phrease used to denegrate modern "MMORPG's"?

     

    Personally I've had some great experiences in modern MMORPG's that I could not get in any other type of online game like the feeling I'm immersed in an online world with thousands of other players, (when I first played WoW I wanted to explore all the world do all the quests and play with as many people as I could, same with EQ2 and now SW:TOR), roleplaying with others has been a surprisingly enjoyable experience, crafting objects that are actually useful and needed by my guild or friends in game, going on adventures around the world with others and having to be organised in a team to survive what ever the world threw at us, being a successful trader within a real economy, having a home that I can hang my treasures and trophies the list goes on. So now I'm thinking I've never actually played a real MMORPG and I'm wondering what else is there other than going full simulation like Wurm Online. 

     

    We all seem to have different ideas of what makes an MMORPG and the "its not a real MMORPG" seems to come from disgrungled vets who have seen the genre evolve away from what they imagined it would be a decade or so ago, but that happens with entertainment and Art in general.  Thomas Edison said about his new invention “I don’t want the phonograph sold for amusement purposes. It is not a toy. It is for business purposes only.” what would he think about the iPod and I feel that many of the users of this "its not a real MMORPG"  phrase feel the same about there precious MMORPG games.

     

    In SW:TOR I feel much more immersed in the world around me than I have with previous games, it has come alive with a myriad of different characters and places to meet and see that it makes me want to see and hear it all just like WoW and EQ2 and when I'm grouped it feels like I'm in an adventure film with all the dialogue choices and fast paced action. But it is to some a lobby based dungeon/quest/PvP grinder though I feel I'm playing a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game with all the different people to play with and against, places to see and things to do and with game dev's only having a certain amount of time, resources and funds I understand that no game is going to be all things to all men but why do players think that they should be? surely there is an MMORPG out there for you and if not patience is a virtue you know, there are plentry of other things to fill your time rather than bemoaning the demise of the genre. 

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    That Tesla comment offends me.  You obvious have no idea anything about the man and just watched the Prestige one too many times.

    His name is Nikola Tesla, not Nicolas Tesla.  Edison did not steal his ideas, they were adversaries because Edison was promoting direct current (DC) and Tesla was promoting alternating current (AC).  So just stop.

    OP:  Since the term "Massively" has no qualifying quantity it could mean anything from two to 2 billion.  So any online game that supports more than one player could qualify as an MMO since the last two parts "multiplayer" and "online" have been satisied and the first part, as stated above has no guidelines.



    You are right I mispelled his name, for that I am sorry, it is Nikola Tesla, as for the other part no I am not wrong.   Tesla worked for Edison.   Edison had many people that worked for him and he claimed their work for his own.  That is one of the reasons why Tesla left Edison.



    You might want to visit the Edison house down in Fort Myers Florida.  Will probably change your negative opinion of him somewhat.

    Back on topic, of course everyone has their own opinion of what an MMORPG is, and likely it was forged on when they joined the MMORPG game space.

    A person like the OP who joined in 2007 will have no real concept of how different MMORPGs could be (and were) back in the early days, before the all became pretty much standardized and homoginized into the standard theme parks of today.

    I could post for several pages all the ways MMORPG's have changed, many in ways that I and others don't care for.  Doesn't matter if the majority of the market favors the style of today's MMO's, still doesn't make them better games in our eyes.

    To keep is short, the easy way for me to describe it is MMORPG's in the early days tried very hard to be virtual worlds, and we expected that they would continue that trend to ever more realism and possibility.

    Instead they've more or less evolved into much more simplistic "games" which the market place favors.

    Again, doesn't make them better, just more popular.

    See, the thing is the, the OP doesn't know what he missed, so there's no sense of loss.  I expect one day MMORPG's will evolve in other directions and perhaps at that time the OP will come to understand what we feel.

    Edit: LOL, hey, I was getting to that part...just took me a bit.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • DLangleyDLangley Beaumont, TXPosts: 1,407Member

    From this post onward let's stay on topic please. This is about the subject outlined in the OP, not Edison or Tesla.

     

    Thanks!

  • BCuseBCuse San Diego, CAPosts: 140Member

    Originally posted by Squal'Zell

    MMORPG for me, meaning my opinion, and it will be my criteria to decide if i will or will not play that game

    1. open world acceccible by anyone, anytime, without instancing, without instant travel

    reason: makes it more immersive to play when not only can you kill monsters, but you also have to deal with competition, its like a form of pvp without the bloodshed, well maybe a bit of blodshed... ok maybe alot...:), also, interacive environment, cuting down trees building cities, etc... is not necessary but a bonus.

    2. player interdependency (meaning it's impossible to play alone, and im not talking about grouping and soloing, im talking about professions, see point 3)

    reason:  you are playing a multiplayer, so its only normal that you would have to interact with others. and not soully on coop missions or competitive missions, but also in business, marketing, doctoring, harvesting. again its more in the immersion that if you want a gun you would go to a gunsmith, if you want armor you would go to an armorsmith, you are wounded you would go to a doctor, etc

    3. different viable gaming professions. (meaning that it's not just combat that is required to play, i should be able to play the game without having to fire a single shot, and to those who want to use it as a facebook with high end graphics, can make it a perfectly playale style) 

    reason: some people dont want to only fight large monsters, they want to be part of the world. they want to make a difference without the violence. back in SWG pre-cu i used to be a rifleman, but at some point i decided hey lets check out the doctor profession in its pure state, and the path to actually becomming not just a normal doctor but a daned good one was actually fun, as a doctor you had to look for very specific  ingredients, create components, experiment on those components, and finally create wound packs, etc... 

    4. Player Run Economy. (and everything surrounding its mechanics, such as decay, and player crafter shit)

    goes without saying,and on par with point 2

    now games to be considered true MMORPGs (IN MY OPINION, and i will only name them as such) if they meet those criteria

    "live the best saga ever told, YOURS" those words should define an MMORPG.

     



    well said, this is what i look for myself!   "live the best saga ever told, YOURS is what got me into playing mmorps.  sad now i cant find a game that i feel i can do that or really enjoy.  i think most of the newer games are moving away from what a traditional mmorpg was, should they have another name? maybe?  i also think there is a good amount of players who want a more sandbox game and right now there is just not very many good options for that.  so they end up venting frustration on the themepark type games.  hey if you love whatever game you are playing good for you, thats what its all about.

  • MickleMickle Evansville, INPosts: 119Member Uncommon

    This problem should not be a Problem.   MMO = Massive Mltiplayer Online.

    Massive = the number of players.  100 playes, or more, in a game at the same time.  That does not mean twelve players per server over 1000 servers.image  It means 100 players, or more, per server.  ( I would prefer to ONLY have one server for everybody but that creats to much lag.  At a minumum, I would hope it is 1000 players per server. image )

     

    Multiplayer = Other players are needed to get anything done.  That goes for crafting, socializing and questing.

     

    Online =  You are playing a game that you couldn't play offline.  Most of the Online games nowadays can be soloed.  ( I have no real need to be Online to play them. image )

     

    Most of the current "MMOs" that we can play are NOT "MMOs".  That does not mean they are bad games, only that they are NOT "MMOs".

     

    RPG = Role Playing Game.

    Role = You are an actor playing a ROLE.  It allows you to experience new things under the rules of that role.

     

    Playing = Having fun image

     

    Game = a device used for playing image

  • corpusccorpusc Chattanooga, TNPosts: 1,330Member

    its not just a meaningless disparagement.  people who followed the original MMOs are angry that the term is becoming meaningless, when it USED to have an obvious meaning.

    multiplayer games existed long before massively multiplayer ones existed.

    the whole point of the term is to describe something that takes it to a whole different level in terms of the number of players who potentially can interact with each other in one space.

    the people who are damaging the term MMO, would argue that Quake 1 was one of the original MMOs because "there were thousands of people playing online at one time".  missing the key part here, which is that they were only able to interact with 16 players at a time.

    what's relevant here is HOW MANY PLAYERS IN A SINGLE SPACE CAN POTENTIALLY INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.

     

    if you don't think that matters, then ANY popular multiplayer game could be considered an MMO, and thus the term is meangingless in its purpose.   to describe something that takes it to the next level.  and differentiates it from the normally small number of players segregated by being on different servers.  or in the modern "MMO" cases, by different instances.  which MAY physically be on the same server, but where the players are divided into seperate spaces where there are only a small amount of other players they can interact with.  private areas, where serendipitous run-ins are entirely impossible anymore.  its nothing like being in a virtual world full of life, where any kind of chance meeting/interaction can take place with other players. 

     

    in EQ1 and UO, everywhere you were in the world, you could either see other players or had potential for them to come walking by.  and maybe they'd want to join your party, or just warn you about something, or WHATEVER.   those possibilities are taken away in private, small-scale spaces.

    almost all modern "MMOs" relagate the virtual world aspects to only certain sanctioned areas of the game.  like in Guild Wars, its just the cities.  in WoW, its also the overland zones (and even there, sometimes phasing seperates the playerbase thats in the "same region", if they aren't on the same step of some quest).

    in EQ1 and UO, the whole world, including dungeons and such, were "open", public spaces, where you could potentially interact with over 100 players.

     

    i'm sure some exceptions could be pointed out  (after x many years EQ1 introduced a small number of instanced dungeons.   for..... instance), but thats generally the idea.

     

    people like me want the whole world to seem alive.  and not have these bizarre dividing lines where some areas are public, and other areas are private.  private areas work against the whole concept of being "massively multiplayer".

     

    as long as you enjoy whatever you enjoy, don't worry too much about what its called.  the term probably doesn't have much meaning to you in that case.  

    but you should know that its VERY RELEVANT to some people, and they have good reasons for trying to keep the term meaningful.  makes it VERY hard for us to know what upcoming MMOs to pay attention to and which ones we can write off (for those of us, where instancing is a dealbreaker).  we end up having to waste alot of time installing and trying out endless MMOs, only to be disappointed that its not a "proper virtual world" of the kind we seek.  so it has very real, practical impact on our life.  because the more people abuse the MMO term, the less we can use websites like this to know what things to pay attention to.  cuz sitemasters neglect to mention those critical aspects, now that the general "MMO" player doesn't seem to any longer care whether a game has a real virtual world aspect to it or not.  because they don't hardly EXIST anymore (relatively speaking).

    The End
    ---------------------------
    i don't expect to like Darkfall, altho i may like it MORE than other MMOs. i know it is gonna have a very frustrating level of grind to it, even if its significantly less than most. waiting for a pure FAST action virtual world. dice rolling & character levels (even "skills") IN COMBAT should have never carried over from pencil & paper to a computer that can reasonably model 3D spaces and objects

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,257Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DLangley

    From this post onward let's stay on topic please. This is about the subject outlined in the OP, not Edison or Tesla.
     
    Thanks!

     

    Haha I have to admit, I did laugh.




    but here is the thing. The reason people are making a big deal about which games are MMO and which are not, is because developers and producers are milking consumers over these titles. Take for example, a game such as Dynasty Warrior which is commonly excepted to NOT BE A MMO. So players of Dynasty Warrior don't expect the game to require a Sub fee nor a Cash Shop. But once the developers/ producers put the word "ONLINE" in the title, and restrict players from playing Offline,



    the developers now use this moment to call the game a "MMORPG" which we commonly except that a MMO needs a Sub Fee or a Item Shop of some kind. Now that the developers are marketing their old non MMO game as a MMO, they add a sub fee or item shop, and players get milked extra money for a game which functions as a non MMO. We see this in CORPGs like Dynasty Warrior Online, Guild Wars, Dungeon and Dragons online, etc.they milk consumers off the fact that their games have similar requirements and features that MMO has. Many consumers fall right into the milking, because they don't even realize that they are paying extra money for a Diablo clone (as I call it)

    image

  • AxehiltAxehilt San Francisco, CAPosts: 8,752Member Uncommon

    Persistent shared worldspaces + lots of players + RPG mechanics (progression, combat, story) = MMORPG

    "Joe stated his case logically and passionately, but his perceived effeminate voice only drew big gales of stupid laughter..." -Idiocracy
    "There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." -Socrates

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,257Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Persistent shared worldspaces + lots of players + RPG mechanics (progression, combat, story) = MMORPG

     

    Dynasty Warrior and VINTICUS and Guikd Wars are MMO?

    image

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member

    Originally posted by dannydeuce

    Originally posted by Teala


     

    When you quoted Thomas Edison you lost me, Thomas Edison was a hack, so anything he said is worthless, he gained fame off the work of others - people like Nicolas Tesla.  

    As for what a real MMORPG is?  Well SWTOR is not one.  That I can tell you.  :)

    Talk about proving his point absolutely perfectly.   Everyone that claims this mmo and that mmo is not an mmo always lack any substance in regards to the why.   "It's not an mmo, trust me" is so cliche.

    Not everyone.  You shouldn't criticize someone in the same sentence that you toss out a huge blanket statement that isn't even true.  I've given specific reasons why I feel SWTOR doesn't feel massively multiplayer, but rather an Online Cooperate RPG.  And you don't have to trust me, but don't claim "everyone" does the same thing.

    Later on in your post, you say how the game is massive.  The first M in MMORPG does not stand for massive, and this is where the problems start.  In GW2, and in Rift, I see massive amounts of people in one area playing together.  I don't see anyone talking about such huge groups in SWTOR.  The game is largely instanced or zoned, much of the RPG elements of which can be solo'd, and lastly, I don't consider raids a massive amount of people.

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member

    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Persistent shared worldspaces + lots of players + RPG mechanics (progression, combat, story) = MMORPG

     

    Dynasty Warrior and VINTICUS and Guikd Wars are MMO?

    Nope, at least not in my book.  I consider them all COORPGs, like SWTOR, only SWTOR goes a bit further, but not much.  It's still in COORPG territory to me, but people on this site seem to think Diablo 3 classifies as an MMO, so it's no sense splitting hairs in the end..

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Persistent shared worldspaces + lots of players + RPG mechanics (progression, combat, story) = MMORPG

    Pretty much, that is the definition of an MMORPG.  It's just an RPG with a persistent world and lots of players that share that world.  So if a game has the three things Axehilt mentioned then it technically in an MMORPG.

    Now let me get to why we have these debates.

    Imagine you have a game which has a persistent world, lots of players, and RPG mechanics.  Now imagine that players in that game spend almost all their time solo-questing, in 5-man dungeon instances, or warfront PvP.  The game is technically an MMORPG, but the activities the players are doing are not MMORPG activities.  In fact, you can do ALL of those activities in non-MMORPG games.  The persistent world is not necessary at all for those.

    This is where you get the "it's not an MMORPG argument."  This argument is basically just hyperbole used to make a reasonable point.  The point is that if you create a game with all of the components of an MMORPG (as Axehilt mentioned) but then proceed to design the game to IGNORE or HIDE those components in favor of traditional multiplayer RPG mechanics, then you have defeated the purpose of making an MMORPG.  You have basically created an MMORPG that tries its very best not to be an MMORPG...which is ridiculous.

    Arena Net actually understood this principal when they made Guild Wars.  They basically made Guild Wars because they didn't like all of the annoyances associated with the MMORPGs of the time, and wanted to make a game that eliminated them and felt more like an actual RPG.  So they just decided to make it a completely instanced CORPG instead.  They knew a persistent world would make no sense for what they were trying to do.  All it would do is get in the way.

    I seriously don't understand why some developers feel like they need a persistent world.  If your game is going to be extremely linear and emulate an SPRPG as much as possible...then I don't see the purpose of a persistent world.  It just gets in the way.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Baltimore, MDPosts: 5,359Member

    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Originally posted by Axehilt

    Persistent shared worldspaces + lots of players + RPG mechanics (progression, combat, story) = MMORPG

     

    Dynasty Warrior and VINTICUS and Guikd Wars are MMO?

    I have no clue about those first two, but the vast majority of Guild Wars is not persistent.  It is all instances.  The only persistent part are the towns...and this is a minor part of the game.  Calling GW an MMORPG would be like calling Diablo an MMORPG because it had a persistent lobby.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • ElricmerrenElricmerren White Bear Lake, MNPosts: 295Member

    To me so long as a game has a persistent setting that that supports a massive amount of players to interact together in that area it is a mmo. To me a persistent world is a world that is not randomly generated, such as that when you walk into an area the enviroment as well as people in that area are the same overall, and not having completely different land masses or creatures in the area each time you go there. To me interaction is merely having your actions effect other players in the area around you, which range from being able to help kill a creature with a players to gathering things that now another character can not now or killing other characters in the area as well. Yet  this does not mean that you have to group, fight,  or work couperatively with other players around you, but merely have an effect on those players around you.

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.