Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid No one thinks those are MMOs. Don't be ridiculous.
I didn't say anyone did, but what is the real difference from sitting in an avatar chat to play a 10 player game, then sitting on a server screen loading into a 16 player game? If the 10 player game is an MMO, why isnt the 16 player game? You hop into both games, maybe both have a chat outside of the game, but neither has hundreds of players or can honestly say they are massive... so why are people arguing that a game with so little people PLAYING at the same time is an MMO? It's not. Its a multiplayer game.
If anything, the only blanket term here is MULTIPLAYER.
So don't be ridiculous and try to understand my meaning.
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
The devil lies in the detail, a gallon of water poured out of a bucket makes you wet, a gallon of ice, well, dropped out of a bucket can kill you, just a small detail in temperature.
But ofcourse it is worth being wary of attempts to "newspeak" out a term
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
Er, yeah, and so does virtually every other game ever made then.
Goldeneye was an RPG, you play a role in a game!
Morrowind was a first person shooter!
Neither the industry, nor the developers called GW1 an MMO. Know why? It's not an MMO. There's nothing massively multiplayer about playing with 4 people. That's why the term came to exist in the first place, to make that distinction.
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
That's kind of a huge difference. It's changes the entire way the game is played, and it changes the genre it would be placed in. MMORPGs are, by and large, no instanced.
In 2003 a game like GW1 would NEVER be considered an MMO, but the term has literally lost all meaning. I've met many people, MANY people, who call League of Legends an MMO. I've seen people call DFO (which allows 4 people side scrolling in a brawl) an MMO because it has a lobby. People call World of Tanks an MMO, because it has a lobby. People call Age of Empires Online an MMO, despite the fact that you can only play with 3 other people at once.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
That's kind of a huge difference. It's changes the entire way the game is played, and it changes the genre it would be placed in. MMORPGs are, by and large, no instanced.
In 2003 a game like GW1 would NEVER be considered an MMO, but the term has literally lost all meaning. I've met many people, MANY people, who call League of Legends an MMO. I've seen people call DFO (which allows 4 people side scrolling in a brawl) an MMO because it has a lobby. People call World of Tanks an MMO, because it has a lobby. People call Age of Empires Online an MMO, despite the fact that you can only play with 3 other people at once.
People are free to call whatever they like an MMO. I don't call LoL or WoT an MMO, but I don't go after the poeple who do, either. I have no issues with it, I hate labels anyway. I'd much rather have peolpe judge games individually.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
I remember playing with 150ish people in a zone in Vanguard, on a PvP server, and while I did not play FE past the free trial, I saw 40-50 people in the area I was in....never played MO though....
I agree with the premise though, if something is built around 5 person dungeon crawls/instances, and personal story areas, and other such things, they do not feel too massive to me, they are more lobby, even if it doesn't have a 'lobby', than mmo imo.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
Yeah, and you can also call my Pontiac G6 a Lambo, but it doesn't make it right.
If its not massive, its not massive. Get over it.
It also not about how many you see in one spot at any given time, its about ACCESS. They ARE there, they ARE accessible. In those little lobby games, only 16 people or less are actually accessible at any given time. THAT IS NOT MASSIVE. It will never be massive.
Regarding instances, I honestly don't care for them, but at least those people are accessible. Unless of course each instance only allows 16 players, then it is no longer an MMO as that is not a massive amount of people.
By the way, I am an LoL, Dota, and FPS addict too, and after just hopping onto LoL for a quick dominion match, I asked either team if anyone would consider LoL an MMO and they laughed at the thought.
Look at Sword Art Online (an anime). That was a WORLD. Not a mediocre game with online slapped on it like 99% of all the mmos being pushed out. You didnt have every single person running around killing things and being the great hero that stopped the centar (seriously, why do mmos insist on have every single player being the great hero as if the other thousands of people dont exist like it's a single player game). You had blacksmith players, shop owner players, cooks, fishermen, people who ran services and did things like scouting and spying without being some super hardcore sword wielder.
That's how games like Runescape felt (except now they added a mediocre story to it. at least at the start now). I just hope someone besides an indy dev realises this and decides to make a decent mmo. I bet it's publishers' faults though. They're all a bunch old people who probably can't even "do the email" and slap their monitors when they think the PC is acting up.
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I don't think 16 players is massive either, primarily becasue I think multiplayer beats that. But if you have one area where hundreds can go in, that meets my definition of massive. Eventually someone is going to have to define these terms otherwise the argument will continue ad nauseum
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
Yeah, and you can also call my Pontiac G6 a Lambo, but it doesn't make it right.
If its not massive, its not massive. Get over it.
It also not about how many you see in one spot at any given time, its about ACCESS. They ARE there, they ARE accessible. In those little lobby games, only 16 people or less are actually accessible at any given time. THAT IS NOT MASSIVE. It will never be massive.
Regarding instances, I honestly don't care for them, but at least those people are accessible. Unless of course each instance only allows 16 players, then it is no longer an MMO as that is not a massive amount of people.
By the way, I am an LoL, Dota, and FPS addict too, and after just hopping onto LoL for a quick dominion match, I asked either team if anyone would consider LoL an MMO and they laughed at the thought.
Hrmh... GW actually allowes 48 players in the same map. Hundreds in non-combat areas. Not that it matters much since anyone can call anything massive.
And I don't have to get over anything. Its not bothering me. And your metaphor doesn't fit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
There we go patronizing again...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
Unfortunately thats what happens when terms are vague and not defined. It's why in all peer reviewed studies the terms they use are defined at the beginning so there is no argument
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
Unfortunately thats what happens when terms are vague and not defined. It's why in all peer reviewed studies the terms they use are defined at the beginning so there is no argument
You can't really expect adacemic level writing or scientific accuracy on forums. Some posters just need to accept and tolerate the ambiguity better.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
Unfortunately thats what happens when terms are vague and not defined. It's why in all peer reviewed studies the terms they use are defined at the beginning so there is no argument
You can't really expect adacemic level writing or scientific accuracy on forums. Some posters just need to accept and tolerate the ambiguity better.
I don't at all. However we do need to speak the same language. What does massive mean? is it massive multiplayer as in lots of people? How many people, or is it massive and multiplayer.
What does role playing mean. Is it just playing your character or something more.
I have my own definition but there's no saying that is the right one? But until there is a generally agreed upon defintion it's not the wrong one.
Does the community at large feel that lobby games are massive becuase there is a lot of people in the lobby.
I mean technically there is nothing in MMORPG that states there even needs persistance.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Personally I think lobby games and co-op games are MMO"s. I don't care what the developers called GW1, it meets the criteria of the acronym MMO.
IMO MMO is an an umbrella term and can encompass any online game that is more people than in a multiplayer. Lobby, RPG, FPS... they are all MMO's just different sub-genre's.
Think if it like the book term fiction, a broad term that encompases high, low fantasky, steampunk, science fiction, horror, historical...
edit - to me the developers of GW1 saying there game is not an MMO is like Kellog's saying Vector is a meal replacement and not a cereal. Essentially meaningless spin to differentiate their product.
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I don't think 16 players is massive either, primarily becasue I think multiplayer beats that. But if you have one area where hundreds can go in, that meets my definition of massive. Eventually someone is going to have to define these terms otherwise the argument will continue ad nauseum
An area where hundreds can go in, at the same time, and actually play the game, is massive. If it is just some form of lobby, its just a massive chat then. I am combing massive, multiple and player. If it is just massive, multiple and lobby/chat, then the G part of MMOG is missing.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
Yeah, and you can also call my Pontiac G6 a Lambo, but it doesn't make it right.
If its not massive, its not massive. Get over it.
It also not about how many you see in one spot at any given time, its about ACCESS. They ARE there, they ARE accessible. In those little lobby games, only 16 people or less are actually accessible at any given time. THAT IS NOT MASSIVE. It will never be massive.
Regarding instances, I honestly don't care for them, but at least those people are accessible. Unless of course each instance only allows 16 players, then it is no longer an MMO as that is not a massive amount of people.
By the way, I am an LoL, Dota, and FPS addict too, and after just hopping onto LoL for a quick dominion match, I asked either team if anyone would consider LoL an MMO and they laughed at the thought.
Hrmh... GW actually allowes 48 players in the same map. Hundreds in non-combat areas. Not that it matters much since anyone can call anything massive.
And I don't have to get over anything. Its not bothering me. And your metaphor doesn't fit.
It actually fits quite well thank you Just because they have things in common doesn't put them in the same league.
I am not arguing GW1's status specifically. By the way, even the developers of GW1 don't classify it as an MMO, I think that says a lot. They labeled it as cooperative role playing and competitive pvp game. And 48 is nowhere near massive, and hundreds in a portion of the game where you aren't playing IS massive, but its not a massive GAME. That is why GW and its developers never labeled it as an MMORPG, cause the M was not combined with the G. It was MORPG if anything.
I agree all of the way with this. Although i have started to see a rise in several, several "sandbox" MMOs being made by independent developers, but because of the popularity in so many "themepark" styled MMOs, most of them are very unsuccessful. Though i love how game mechanics and combat systems are starting to evolve in the MMO franchise, but it just seems that the price for it is devovling the game world and player freedom.
one thing i will say, Elders Scrolls Online. i can promise you that this will be the new world game, maybe an already known wolrd by the single-player series that we all know but it will be a WORLD. If you only think that their game engine was built from zero and it's not a already existed engine, it's enough.
Comments
I agree. Essentially, it plays just like an MMORPG that one small detail of being mostly instanced does not suddenly make it completely different.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I didn't say anyone did, but what is the real difference from sitting in an avatar chat to play a 10 player game, then sitting on a server screen loading into a 16 player game? If the 10 player game is an MMO, why isnt the 16 player game? You hop into both games, maybe both have a chat outside of the game, but neither has hundreds of players or can honestly say they are massive... so why are people arguing that a game with so little people PLAYING at the same time is an MMO? It's not. Its a multiplayer game.
If anything, the only blanket term here is MULTIPLAYER.
So don't be ridiculous and try to understand my meaning.
Again, using your logic, the games I listed are all MMO's. They are instanced, and some play like MMO's too.
I will repeat, I will argue to the death that 16 players does not constitute MASSIVE.
The devil lies in the detail, a gallon of water poured out of a bucket makes you wet, a gallon of ice, well, dropped out of a bucket can kill you, just a small detail in temperature.
But ofcourse it is worth being wary of attempts to "newspeak" out a term
Flame on!
Er, yeah, and so does virtually every other game ever made then.
Goldeneye was an RPG, you play a role in a game!
Morrowind was a first person shooter!
Neither the industry, nor the developers called GW1 an MMO. Know why? It's not an MMO. There's nothing massively multiplayer about playing with 4 people. That's why the term came to exist in the first place, to make that distinction.
That's kind of a huge difference. It's changes the entire way the game is played, and it changes the genre it would be placed in. MMORPGs are, by and large, no instanced.
In 2003 a game like GW1 would NEVER be considered an MMO, but the term has literally lost all meaning. I've met many people, MANY people, who call League of Legends an MMO. I've seen people call DFO (which allows 4 people side scrolling in a brawl) an MMO because it has a lobby. People call World of Tanks an MMO, because it has a lobby. People call Age of Empires Online an MMO, despite the fact that you can only play with 3 other people at once.
I never saw more than half a dozen people in the same place in Vanguard, Fallen Earth or Mortal Online. Therefore, are those not MMORPGs? There are relatively few occasions where MMORPGs have massive amounts of players in the same area anyway. Defining what is massive or not is arbitrary anyway. Who is the authority to say what is massive and what is not?
Some people so far as to say any game that has just one instance is not an MMORPG.
Saying GW1 is a "lobby game" is inaccurate since it does not have a lobby. All happens in the game with the game engine. Same with DDO and they didn't even bother calling it anything other than MMORPG. They are different, but not so different they don't deserve the term.
Genres are more defined by what people expect from those games rather than what is in them. Certainly not how well a game satisfies a particular acronym. I'd say its not just pedantic, it is anal. And figthing and arguing over such matters is futile - pointless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
People are free to call whatever they like an MMO. I don't call LoL or WoT an MMO, but I don't go after the poeple who do, either. I have no issues with it, I hate labels anyway. I'd much rather have peolpe judge games individually.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I remember playing with 150ish people in a zone in Vanguard, on a PvP server, and while I did not play FE past the free trial, I saw 40-50 people in the area I was in....never played MO though....
I agree with the premise though, if something is built around 5 person dungeon crawls/instances, and personal story areas, and other such things, they do not feel too massive to me, they are more lobby, even if it doesn't have a 'lobby', than mmo imo.
Yeah, and you can also call my Pontiac G6 a Lambo, but it doesn't make it right.
If its not massive, its not massive. Get over it.
It also not about how many you see in one spot at any given time, its about ACCESS. They ARE there, they ARE accessible. In those little lobby games, only 16 people or less are actually accessible at any given time. THAT IS NOT MASSIVE. It will never be massive.
Regarding instances, I honestly don't care for them, but at least those people are accessible. Unless of course each instance only allows 16 players, then it is no longer an MMO as that is not a massive amount of people.
By the way, I am an LoL, Dota, and FPS addict too, and after just hopping onto LoL for a quick dominion match, I asked either team if anyone would consider LoL an MMO and they laughed at the thought.
Anyone who can define massive as meaning 64 players or less should probably go back to school.
"OMG, THERE IS A MASSIVE RIOT OUTSIDE OF 10 PEOPLE FLIPPING CARS AND LIGHTING STUFF ON FIRE!" said no one ever.
OP is legit.
Look at Sword Art Online (an anime). That was a WORLD. Not a mediocre game with online slapped on it like 99% of all the mmos being pushed out. You didnt have every single person running around killing things and being the great hero that stopped the centar (seriously, why do mmos insist on have every single player being the great hero as if the other thousands of people dont exist like it's a single player game). You had blacksmith players, shop owner players, cooks, fishermen, people who ran services and did things like scouting and spying without being some super hardcore sword wielder.
That's how games like Runescape felt (except now they added a mediocre story to it. at least at the start now). I just hope someone besides an indy dev realises this and decides to make a decent mmo. I bet it's publishers' faults though. They're all a bunch old people who probably can't even "do the email" and slap their monitors when they think the PC is acting up.
I don't think 16 players is massive either, primarily becasue I think multiplayer beats that. But if you have one area where hundreds can go in, that meets my definition of massive. Eventually someone is going to have to define these terms
otherwise the argument will continue ad nauseum 
Hrmh... GW actually allowes 48 players in the same map. Hundreds in non-combat areas. Not that it matters much since anyone can call anything massive.
And I don't have to get over anything. Its not bothering me. And your metaphor doesn't fit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
When you have such a difficulty even understanding what the name of your particular hobby means you know there`s a serious problem. No wonder we have the kind of community we do.
``It`s a radio controlled car, man``. Cool, huh``.
``Actually that is called a dinky car, sherlock``.
``Well I`m calling it an RC car, I don`t care.``
Amazing logic to be witnessed on this site sometimes. Truly amazing.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There we go patronizing again...
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Unfortunately thats what happens when terms are vague and not defined. It's why in all peer reviewed studies the terms they use are defined at the beginning so there is no argument
You can't really expect adacemic level writing or scientific accuracy on forums. Some posters just need to accept and tolerate the ambiguity better.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I don't at all. However we do need to speak the same language. What does massive mean? is it massive multiplayer as in lots of people? How many people, or is it massive and multiplayer.
What does role playing mean. Is it just playing your character or something more.
I have my own definition but there's no saying that is the right one? But until there is a generally agreed upon defintion it's not the wrong one.
Does the community at large feel that lobby games are massive becuase there is a lot of people in the lobby.
I mean technically there is nothing in MMORPG that states there even needs persistance.
An area where hundreds can go in, at the same time, and actually play the game, is massive. If it is just some form of lobby, its just a massive chat then. I am combing massive, multiple and player. If it is just massive, multiple and lobby/chat, then the G part of MMOG is missing.
It actually fits quite well thank you
Just because they have things in common doesn't put them in the same league.
I am not arguing GW1's status specifically. By the way, even the developers of GW1 don't classify it as an MMO, I think that says a lot. They labeled it as cooperative role playing and competitive pvp game. And 48 is nowhere near massive, and hundreds in a portion of the game where you aren't playing IS massive, but its not a massive GAME. That is why GW and its developers never labeled it as an MMORPG, cause the M was not combined with the G. It was MORPG if anything.
Agreed
cant wait for that next year. it's going to be quite the skill-system type of sandbox MMO.