Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I've been on this forum for nearly 9 years....
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
It wouldn't be such a big deal to me if the site name was just MMO.com. You could then argue that any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world, having traditional RPG elements, etc. should be featured here.
The name, however is MMORPG.com. The RPG part is what (I thought) distinguished it's content from all other types of half-ass-sorta-hybrid MMO's.
"If MMORPG players were around when God said, "Let their be light" they'd have called the light gay, and plunged the universe back into darkness by squatting their nutsacks over it."
-Luke McKinney, The 7 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Online Gaming
"In the end, SWG may have been more potential and promise than fulfilled expectation. But I'd rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
-Raph Koster
Now of course that is very narrow minded and you probably miss out on some really good games in genre you don't pay attention to.
But still the label just help you save a little time. People should and would do their research anyway. Take LOL as an example. If it is labelled a MMO mistakenly, you would be wasting may be 5 more min reading its feature summary, which is pretty obviously that it is instanced pvp.
So once again, the label matters very little. If you really am interested in a game, you will take a least 5 min to read about what it does ... and there will be no confusion ... no matter what the label is ... of the gameplay.
So why would you care? Just for the 5 min to read a webpage to figure out LOL is a MOBA?
Personally i would much rather read up on it, and decide for myself if the details suits me.
May be this site should change its name, becuase it obviously cover action RPG (D3) and MOBA (LOL).
No one says a website cannot evolve.
I don't see Call of Duty or Civilization listed on this site, among others.
What do you think should be done with games that don't neatly fit into the old classifications? Ban game developers from trying anything innovative?
How many players in an instance does a game need before you can call it "massively" multiplayer? Is 100 in an instance massive? How about 1000? I don't think you can justify picking any number n and saying that n+1 players per instance is massive and n is not.
What if a game has some instances capped at 1000 players and others capped at 2? What if 99% of the game is instances capped at 10000 players and 1% is instances capped at 2? What if the 99% and the 1% are reversed?
I got a kick out of that.
The "all at one time" part seems to be where people differ in opinion. For example, GW1 had a main environment where everyone convened but since the gameplay was in small battle arenas, they opted to classify their game as a CORPG and never refered to it originally as an MMO. In Travian, there is no 3D world, but players are not only interacting with each other but doing so on a far more massive scale than most 3D MMORPGs do, but many here do not consider Travian to be an MMO. Some of the people here would have an aneurism if you tried to convince them that Ikariam or Grepolis were MMOs, let alone MMORPGs, despite hundreds of players concurrently levelling up, chatting and warring with each other in a persistent game world. 
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
Weird... I had you blocked.
Either way, its about people not understanding what an MMO is, not what the site covers. I can't make that any more clear that I already have.
Now, if you want to discuss taking a part a site that covers a specific topic (or tries too), and replacing it with a run of the mill website in the likes of gamespot, or ign, well thats a whole other thread my friend.
What is so different from Warcraft 2 and Diablo? If Diablo can be called an MMO, explain to me how Warcraft 2 cant be.
It is not narrowminded. I don't like JRPG's that much so I don't typically pay attention to them. I also don't like Romance Comedy movies either... I don't think I am missing out on anything.
Let's just stop labeling stuff to help people find what they like so that they can discover new things right?
Thing is, you can disagree with fact that the earth is round in shape, but all that does is make you wrong. The definition of MMO doesn't leave room to call a 4 player game an MMO.
It was the Java coders !
They started with this stupid crap, to place a bracket direct behind the function instead of the next line to keep it "containered".
They are guilty !
LOL you win
One is factually based the other isn't.
No one is calling a 4 player game an MMO. They are calling games that let us interact with hundreds of people and actively group with 5-25 an MMO.
Again? I mean, they were just here.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You make me like charity
You don't get the point of this thread. It isn't about Diablo 3 specifically. I just use it as an example. I could really bring up others as well. The issue is you have people entering a thread where people are discussing an MMO, and their ideas for an MMO whether it be sandbox or themepark and then arguing that the MMO should be turned into a multiplayer game (ie; instances, lobby, limited people per area and so on), because they have no idea what an MMO is! An MMO can absolutely 100% have those non MMO like features and still be an MMO as long as the core is there.
For this website too have proper conversations people need to know the difference between an MMO and a general multiplayer game. Nothing is wrong with either genre, I love both (and single player). When someone starts a thread about an MMO they have no interest in someones fanatical ideas about a general multiplayer game.
Maybe we should make a new classification. Something that bridges the gap between a multiplayer and what many people feel an MMO is.
A multiplayer only lets me interact with a set amount of people (for arguments sake say 64) but if there is an ability to talk/trade/auction with more than that that is is not simply a multplayer anymore, it's gone beyond that.
Call them moderate multiplayer?
Or maybe we should just call them them MMO and put the suffix virtual world onto traditional MMO. MMOVW. (massive multiplayer online cars... hmm auto assault
)
To some extent it is true. But there are obviously grey areas. Like what do you call Dishonored? It has some RPG elemetns, some stealth, and a steam punk setting.
And to me, many "proper" MMOs, and non-MMOs are close enough that the distinction is much less than the details of gameplay. I like D3 more than WOW not because D3 is a ARPG, and WOW is a MMO, is because of the combat mechanics.
In fact, online pvp, vs online PVE games are better separated than MMO like WOW, and non-MMO diablo 3. So i don't see the MMO label that useful. When i am evaluating PS2, the important label is large battle pvp, which is 100% different in playstyle, than WOW, which incidentally is also referred to as a MMO by common usage.
I am for people spending a little more time, ignoring the labels, and learning more about individual games.
MMO = "any game or network that has thousands of players online"
Can't get much more clear than that. Not sure why Drevar supposedly doesn't know what an MMO is. Seems like he (?) summed it up pretty well.
And before you start talking about how the players all need to be in the same world, does that exclude dungeons? How about dynamic layers? Different servers? Instances that allow thousands of players? How about a game where you can play by yourself in some, or even most, areas and maybe only need others to take down a difficult boss?
It seems to me you are trying to make up what you think MMO should mean, and anything that doesn't conform to that needs to not be included in the term. It seems like you're trying to say that MMO only means that a game has to have a whole bunch of players online who can see/interact with every other player if they want to in one open world on one server. Rather than the actual definition of a game that is capable of having a bunch of players online, provided that online element is a requirement to play the game.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
If people knew what an MMO was I wouldn't have made this thread. Now you are just being silly and pretending people know what an MMO is. And yes, MMO does have a definition. It is exceptionally straightforward. The only subjective part of MMO is massive as no true number has been attached to the word massive.
If you are interacting with a few people, its multiplayer. Just because you have the possibility of interacting with others at some point in time in the future does not turn that multiplayer game into a massive one. MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER means we are interacting with them (a massive amount) in the same world at the same time. Multiplayer means people playing TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME. Otherwise single player games are now multiplayer games because a second person can play that game AFTER the previous person.
I would take to MMO's being called multiplayer much easier as they are multiplayer. But if you aren't interacting at the same time with a massive amount of people, while playing a game, its not an MMO.
all jokes aside I knew it was over when they introduced Guild Wars to this forum. It was not a MMO, it was just another lobby game. Slowly the tides turned in favor of this new ez-mode lobby game format. And that was that.
Bottomline, as a business, mmorpg.com has no choice but to accept all gaming genres in order to maintain some sort of business model with a revenue stream vast enough to keep the model going. Plain & simple, this site isn't hosted on hopes & dreams, nor wishful thinking.
Minecraft is more MMO than Diablo 3 and GW1 put together, yet Minecraft is not listed on this site.[mod edit]
Listen, I've been here seven years. Being here an additional two years does not make you some sort of MMORPG guru.
Having that ability to interact with hundreds (at some point or anytime) is what seperates multiplayer from Massively multiplayer.
Does d3 let me trade/chat with hundreds of people (so interact) with hundreds of people at the same time? If so then it's an MMO. If not than it doesn't.
Oh boy.
Ok, let's try this.
What do you consider a proper MMORPG? (as in a title)