It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by NaughtyP A persistent world is not required. It sure would be nice though.
Persistent world isn't necessarily required, but some defined worldspace is required.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Loktofeit
World as in it exists and functions without player input or presence. MMOs do not need that. In Planetarion's case the game is the environment, but there is actually no world in the game. As much as chess has a world - sort of.
And I agree, people attach way too much baggage on the term - each one something different.
But there is a world in Planetarion. The planets, factories and asteroids all exist in a persistent state world even though that world environment is not readily visible.
As much as the chess pieces on a board.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs. A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.
Why don't you try defining what an MMO is instead of listing what is not required for an MMO
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by Loktofeit
Chess isn't persistent. Each game you reset the board. A world doesn't need to be graphically rendered to have an impact upon it and for your changes in the world to affect others in the long term. Your clearly have no idea what you are talking about. On top of you not having a clue you only started this thread to stir up trouble. Is it possible for you to put some thought into your posts rather than just post for the sake of inciting anger?
Originally posted by maplestone Is this a thread about personal preferences or about the definition of words?
It's a thread about how we aren't allowed to have opinions or enjoy things that Quirhid doesn't like and he just so happens to not like virtual worlds.
I think that it is about both. Some people like persistent worlds, some do not. What is released under the title MMORPG caters heavily to those who do not like persistent worlds. The fans of these games then claim that their games are just as much of an MMORPG as any other game. Apparently they are blind to all differences between games or don't like to discuss how games have changed but remain under the same banner "MMORPG." I would settle for a single MMORPG that had a persistent world with other things that I enjoy. I'm not going into that now. Everquest and FFXI lasted me for seven years. Why someone brings up the idea that persistent worlds are not needed for an MMO when the market is saturated with them is beyond me. If I had a game to play I would be playing it with my free time instead of being on these forums. Apparently the OP likes to argue more than he likes to play. Which is fine, I really don't care.
Originally posted by tablo Originally posted by maplestone Is this a thread about personal preferences or about the definition of words?
Did I write that?
Its about the baggage people attach to the term MMORPG which are not mandatory, although some people think so.
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by maplestone Is this a thread about personal preferences or about the definition of words?
Which *you* consider to not be mandatory.
Why should I use your defintion of what is or isn't mandatory (or preferable) over someone else's?
Originally posted by maplestone Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by maplestone Is this a thread about personal preferences or about the definition of words?
Why should I use yours? The way I see it, there are seemingly two types of definitions that appear on these forums: A proper definition with no preferences attached, and the one that is squeezed to fit your preferences. Some posters first define what they want, and then call it a MMORPG, when it should be the other way around.
If your definition is some form of the former, good for you. If latter, a little introspection is in order.
Talk about "true MMOs", "real MMOs"... what a joke. The inclusion of games that clearly fulfill the criteria, but you may not like, does not taint the term in any way. We don't have to enjoy every game in the genre. And we don't have to redefine the genre when we encounter a game we don't like.
But you are the one who wants to redefine the genre. You admit that MMO's used to have certain features they do not now have, then you say they are not needed, this is still a MMO because you say it is.
To me, it would seem your definition of a MMO is this: if a gaming company wants to call its game a MMO then it is. It does not matter what the gameplay is like if thats the label gaming companies want, then so be it.
What is your defintion of a MMO Quirhad? It seems to me your defintion is as flexible as the latest release into the market. So some clarity would help.
You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P
agreed.. I got the feeling as well.. It was starting to feel like someone was fishing for controversy and debate about "personal" preferences.... I don't get it.. lol
Because the definition of an MMO is only as useful as our distinctions of the various games are.
Yes if you define Massive Multiplayer Online from the words alone games like Call of Duty, Diablo 2 and Darksouls could fit the list.
But is that really helpful for determining the type of the game from a description. It does not.
"Lobby" or "Instanced" should be used to decribe many games but it is seen as negative so it is rarely used. But what other descriptors are good? The problem is not that the definition of MMO is that vague but other descriptors are so vague. If you ask if the Zelda series is an RPG you will get varrying responses. Similar if you ask if Portal is a First Person Shooter.
I'm not following your point here. Yes, in a way you can say a chessboard is a worldspace. That doesn't change the fact that a worldspace is necessary for an MMO. Were you agreeing or disagreeing?
MMORPG should have been stayed with how UO and Meridan defined and created it.
Everything else ranging from themepark instance herp derp to browsergames excel sheet calculations should find (or found) it's own genre.
There is really just to much difference to actually playing something like EQ and going for one of the 10 Million browser "RPGS" where all you do is throw around numbers (and don't even move an avatar).
I guess if you're creating an MMO that's not actually an RPG that has any formal setting, sure. I can't even imagine what that is, though. Quite frankly, whether this "world" in question exists in a virtual or literary space, it's still a necessary variable for any RPG (which, as we all know, are games which tell stories, emergent or linear, and stories consist of characters, their struggles, and the environment in which they inhabit).
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Well ofcourse if you want to keep it in the area of graphical interpretation just to be able to make a point...
IMO when we talk about virtual worlds or persistent worlds, the incidental and intentional player interaction is the key.
Sure, for some people wow will feel like a virtual world just because they see other people afk in the city or because they have a 5 minute faction skirmish at the instance entrance before spending 4 hours inside a private "bubble of reality", like i feel "buffed" for doing 10 pushups...
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.-- Herman Melville
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Quirhid
I think I know what you mean, but a more accurate term, think, would be "gamespace". There is no world in Planetarion still just like there is no world in chess.
Or to put it simply: there is no world world.
[quote]Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player online RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world. [/quote]
Pretty sure a world of some type is required to be considered a true mmo/mmorpg Without some type of world you pretty much dont have a mmo. Unless you are debating an open world to a linear world then thats a different subject,
Originally posted by Scot But you are the one who wants to redefine the genre. You admit that MMO's used to have certain features they do not now have, then you say they are not needed, this is still a MMO because you say it is. To me, it would seem your definition of a MMO is this: if a gaming company wants to call its game a MMO then it is. It does not matter what the gameplay is like if thats the label gaming companies want, then so be it. What is your defintion of a MMO Quirhad? It seems to me your defintion is as flexible as the latest release into the market. So some clarity would help.
I'm not tying to redefine the genre. Or maybe in your eyes I might be. So far, I haven't much disagreed with what the industry calls an MMORPG. And I haven't said anything about MMOs having certain features they lack now. Planetarion is about 12 years old! It precedes many of the MMOs you imply. It has always been an MMO without a world.
My definition is quite flexible. The term MMO only defines that it can bring many players together to play with or against each other. What is attached to the end describes the gameplay. The online part is a binary issue: If you can play it off-line, its not an MMO. Any distinction if something is "massive" or not is completely arbitrary, so it basically is what the majority perceive as being massive rather than a definite value. However, massive does not imply that every player should share the same space. If it did, only a handful of games would ever fill that requirement.
I consider this a practical definition. It all goes to hell pretty soon if you start adding feature requirements to it. Rather than focusing on genres and definitions, I tend to look at games individually - case by case. Seeing this "true MMO" garbage makes me sad.
I view this slightly differently. MMORPG is just a label .. and i know there was plenty of debate of what it is .. and it is not. I think that is irrelevant, and not very useful.
However, what is important is that the players who play "MMORPG" .. what kind of game will attract them. And i agree with you that a world is not always necessarily.
Just look at the games this site covers: Diablo, WOT, LOL, Smite .... there is no consistent virtual world in these games, but their playstyle is close enough to many MMO playstyle. Diablo is very similar to LFD small group dungeoning. WOT is like arena/BG pvp.
I don't believe such a thing as "true MMORPG" exists. They are jsut response to market preferences. And I see a trend of fusing elements from other genres.
I think you confuse about "who" is redefining the genre. No single person can. All this thread is just discussions.
The devs, and industry press, however, *are* redefining the genre. Many MMOs are more lobby like (don't you agree?). Many MMOs have fast travel, less world features, and more link up with anyone and play features (like friend list and x-server functions).
They are called MMOs not by us, not by anyone here, but by teh gaming press, devs, and so on.
It is now more a convenient label for online games with massive number of players (not necessarily in the same world), and some persistencies to characters.
And if you ask me, working out a "personal" definition is just useless. I don't have a definition of what MMO is ... i use whatever label the gaming press (i.e. IGN, ...) and the purpose is to refer to a collection of games for convenience.
English usage and computer game genres changes and morphs all the time. Don't sound like it is the end of the world if the genre changes.