** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
lol pretty much.
Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.
If we're going to define and apply the term "MMO", it needs to be definitive. It also needs to be something that can be applied consistently. If it can't stand up to the challenges put forth, then it's really not a good definition.
MMOs must have a virtual world that is persistent and shared.
Are auction houses virtual worlds? I think I explained why the Auction House in D3 is not a virtual world, so the AH being persistent and shared is irrelevant. Looking outside of D3, I thought eBay was an example of how Auction Houses in general are not considered virtual worlds, even if they are considered games. Auction houses can be games, and they can exist inside virtual worlds, but they are not virtual worlds in themselves. Which leads me to think D3's auction house isn't something that can be used to argue that it is an MMO.
Agreed.
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
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.
LOL!! Hell yeah!! So you're saying that Travian , a sorry excuse of a game , is a MMO? Sorry , where I stand, browser games such as Travian are garbage. I don't even consider them as games , wtf is the joy in starting a new game with a 1 week protection and once that protection is done you're farmed by players that have been playing for 2-3 months? And then people cry about EVE's Online skill/leveling system ... please... ROFL.
Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.
You should heed your own advice.
It is also silly to assume you get to define common english usage. So now the gaming press, and almost every developer is calling DDO, and GW1 MMOs. And many MMOs are more and more like lobby gaming style (like WOW LFD, or take your pick). They are still commony referred to as MMOs.
Do you really think you have the power to change common usage across the whole internet? You probably can't even dictate how the term is used in a gamestop.
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.
Ahh yes, another prophet. Everyone, listen to his sermon on the mount.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.
I don't really care though. Games are evolving, so are players. These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out. One of the two, most likely.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.
I don't really care though. Games are evolving, so are players. These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out. One of the two, most likely.
Yeh. People who can't deal with changge will continue to rant though.
A world may not be required but i think designing a game world-first is likely to make it a more profitable game on average partly simply because some people like it but also partly indirectly because worldy games unintentionally create a side-effect of keeping people playing longer.
Reason:
If you say for the sake of argument that the amount of money a game can potentially make has some connection with player-time spent in a game then what generates player-time?
1) initial levelling
2) endgame activities
3) pastime activities i.e. not levelling or endgame e.g. socializing, crafting, collecting, achievements, reading lore etc
4) repeat levelling, replayability
I think aiming to make game "worldy" has an indirect and in the past probably unconscious effect of improving all four of the above but especially 3 and 4. The obvious example being a worldy game tends to have lots of races and starting areas which increases 4.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.
I don't really care though. Games are evolving, so are players. These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out. One of the two, most likely.
Yeh. People who can't deal with changge will continue to rant though.
Careful, i think supporters of asbestos and early pesticides probably thought the same way
I disagree. The term MMO is used way too often today. Back in 2000, Massive multiplayer might have meant something like 60-100 people running around in the same area interacting, wich is what the technology could handle. They were usually connected on servers that housed ~5000 people.
By todays standard, that is not massive anymore. And even though the technology has advanced, zones get clustered up into a hundred instances of the same zone. I do not call that massive multiplayer by todays standards.
So I think the term MMO can be argued about in itself. The definition must change, as technology has changed.
The reason why all of this is happening I think are twofold:
Choice of the wrong game engines to create MMOs, due to lack of funding or just plain cluelessness and/or the lack of money / willpower / expertise to create a working open world non instanced game engine with todays technology
It must be allowed to be said that most "MMOs" today are doomed before they even launch, because they use inappropriate game engines. In other words, the products are crap, plain and simple. They do not deserve to be called MMOs
I disagree. The term MMO is used way too often today. Back in 2000, Massive multiplayer might have meant something like 60-100 people running around in the same area interacting, wich is what the technology could handle. They were usually connected on servers that housed ~5000 people.
By todays standard, that is not massive anymore. And even though the technology has advanced, zones get clustered up into a hundred instances of the same zone. I do not call that massive multiplayer by todays standards.
So I think the term MMO can be argued about in itself. The definition must change, as technology has changed.
The reason why all of this is happening I think are twofold:
Choice of the wrong game engines to create MMOs, due to lack of funding or just plain cluelessness and/or the lack of money / willpower / expertise to create a working open world non instanced game engine with todays technology
It must be allowed to be said that most "MMOs" today are doomed before they even launch, because they use inappropriate game engines. In other words, the products are crap, plain and simple. They do not deserve to be called MMOs
The thing is that the name MMO (a synonym for MMORPG) is also used wrongly. acording to those people D3 is an MMO, might as well call the CoD series an MMO then and evrey game with an online function. an MMO requires a persistant world wich houses alot of people at the same time. not box evryone in their own little instance that is not an MMO.
Browser games couled be called MMO's but for the sake of gameplay elements lets not.
Please define the term "world" as you are using it.
+1
Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.
Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.
In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Quirhid Originally posted by LoktofeitOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Quirhid
Please define the term "world" as you are using it.+1 Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.
In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.
Well, if you're talking about what the people who created MMOs think, and what a lot of people who play MMOs think, then you're wrong.
On the other hand, if you're talking about what a lot of people who play MMOs think,, what companies who sell the games and what companies who analyze the games think, then you're right.
I feel like a *sigh* is appropriate here. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have a governing body that decides what words mean, or how they are spelled and used, so it's really just a general consensus. I would be willing to bet the general consensus is that you're right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The thing is that the name MMO (a synonym for MMORPG) is also used wrongly. acording to those people D3 is an MMO, might as well call the CoD series an MMO then and evrey game with an online function. an MMO requires a persistant world wich houses alot of people at the same time. not box evryone in their own little instance that is not an MMO.
Browser games couled be called MMO's but for the sake of gameplay elements lets not.
Wrong by your definition? There is no governing body .. no authority of what should be called MMO .. or for that matter, any game genre. It is just for convenient. If the perception change, who cares if there is a persisent world with a lot of people.
Plus, if you go by the name .. "persistent world" is not in there, "massive" can mean anything from a lot of people trading on a AH (don't tell me you don't think ebay is "massive"), to a big pvp battle.
Comments
Agreed.
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
Let's just be friends.
LOL!! Hell yeah!! So you're saying that Travian , a sorry excuse of a game , is a MMO? Sorry , where I stand, browser games such as Travian are garbage. I don't even consider them as games , wtf is the joy in starting a new game with a 1 week protection and once that protection is done you're farmed by players that have been playing for 2-3 months? And then people cry about EVE's Online skill/leveling system ... please... ROFL.
You should heed your own advice.
It is also silly to assume you get to define common english usage. So now the gaming press, and almost every developer is calling DDO, and GW1 MMOs. And many MMOs are more and more like lobby gaming style (like WOW LFD, or take your pick). They are still commony referred to as MMOs.
Do you really think you have the power to change common usage across the whole internet? You probably can't even dictate how the term is used in a gamestop.
Ahh yes, another prophet. Everyone, listen to his sermon on the mount.
By that definition, even GW1 was a MMO, which most people here seem to disagree with.
I don't really care though. Games are evolving, so are players. These old definitions will change also, or the terms will die out. One of the two, most likely.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Yeh. People who can't deal with changge will continue to rant though.
A world may not be required but i think designing a game world-first is likely to make it a more profitable game on average partly simply because some people like it but also partly indirectly because worldy games unintentionally create a side-effect of keeping people playing longer.
Reason:
If you say for the sake of argument that the amount of money a game can potentially make has some connection with player-time spent in a game then what generates player-time?
1) initial levelling
2) endgame activities
3) pastime activities i.e. not levelling or endgame e.g. socializing, crafting, collecting, achievements, reading lore etc
4) repeat levelling, replayability
I think aiming to make game "worldy" has an indirect and in the past probably unconscious effect of improving all four of the above but especially 3 and 4. The obvious example being a worldy game tends to have lots of races and starting areas which increases 4.
Careful, i think supporters of asbestos and early pesticides probably thought the same way
Flame on!
I disagree. The term MMO is used way too often today. Back in 2000, Massive multiplayer might have meant something like 60-100 people running around in the same area interacting, wich is what the technology could handle. They were usually connected on servers that housed ~5000 people.
By todays standard, that is not massive anymore. And even though the technology has advanced, zones get clustered up into a hundred instances of the same zone. I do not call that massive multiplayer by todays standards.
So I think the term MMO can be argued about in itself. The definition must change, as technology has changed.
The reason why all of this is happening I think are twofold:
Choice of the wrong game engines to create MMOs, due to lack of funding or just plain cluelessness and/or the lack of money / willpower / expertise to create a working open world non instanced game engine with todays technology
It must be allowed to be said that most "MMOs" today are doomed before they even launch, because they use inappropriate game engines. In other words, the products are crap, plain and simple. They do not deserve to be called MMOs
The thing is that the name MMO (a synonym for MMORPG) is also used wrongly. acording to those people D3 is an MMO, might as well call the CoD series an MMO then and evrey game with an online function. an MMO requires a persistant world wich houses alot of people at the same time. not box evryone in their own little instance that is not an MMO.
Browser games couled be called MMO's but for the sake of gameplay elements lets not.
Well we do seem to have people on here who find having to use more than one abbreviation for everything in online gaming hurts their brain.
Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.
In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
+1 Clarity on that would really help move the discussion forward.
Something that mimics or tries to mimic a world is enough. It does not need to carry on when the players are not around. A world does not carry on when a P&P play session ends. it works in much the same way as instances. Yet it still feels like a world. More than any MMO, I might add.
In contrast, board games don't even try to mimic a world. Planetarion doesn't. Last time I played. It is more like a big game board. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players fighting for dominance.
Well, if you're talking about what the people who created MMOs think, and what a lot of people who play MMOs think, then you're wrong.
On the other hand, if you're talking about what a lot of people who play MMOs think,, what companies who sell the games and what companies who analyze the games think, then you're right.
I feel like a *sigh* is appropriate here. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have a governing body that decides what words mean, or how they are spelled and used, so it's really just a general consensus. I would be willing to bet the general consensus is that you're right.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Mine does
Wrong by your definition? There is no governing body .. no authority of what should be called MMO .. or for that matter, any game genre. It is just for convenient. If the perception change, who cares if there is a persisent world with a lot of people.
Plus, if you go by the name .. "persistent world" is not in there, "massive" can mean anything from a lot of people trading on a AH (don't tell me you don't think ebay is "massive"), to a big pvp battle.
Just use what is common out there.