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!

The industry is expanding the definition of MMO

nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

Some here think MMO is only about persistent world games. Well, obviously the industry disagree.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

In particular, in this industry analytics firm, which publishes MMO market report as early as 2009. Their reports are used in many gaming site articles. They classify MMO into the following types:

RTS

RPG

Resource Management

Battle Arena

Shooter

Action/Fighting/Adventure

Sport,

and with settings like: Fantasy, Sci-fi, Realism, Anime, Horror, and History.

And they count LOL, and WOT (i guess in the battle arena category). This clearly shows the trend in the industry is expanding, and evolve into more variety. The old way of thinking about MMOs as games only like UO and EQ is a thing of the past.

 

«134567

Comments

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,777Member Uncommon

    They're definitely multiplayer and online games, and MMO doesn't and shouldn't automatically imply MMORPG.

    That leaves the question as how many players it takes to be "massively" multiplayer, and that's nearly impossible to define.  Even if we agree that 2 players per instance is not massively multiplayer and 10,000 is, I don't think you can justify saying that n players per instance is not massively multiplayer and n+1 is for any value of n.

    And even if you could, the number of players per instance varies in many games, whether by area of the game, time of day, or whatever.  Surely it doesn't make sense to claim that a game is an MMO at peak hours and is not an MMO in the middle of the night.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,853Member Uncommon
    This OP is a copy and paste of a previous post of yours in one of ten threads this week on the subject.

    Are you picking fights?
  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    MMO is the new ironically, or the new literally. Does the rampant misuse of ironic in popular culture change the meaning? I would say no. Therefore the same applies to MMO.

    Unfortunately the people who make sense are vastly outnumbered by the plebs so we can't assume that anything means what it meant 10 minutes ago much less 10 years ago.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,988Member Uncommon

    @OP - Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

    Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

    Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing (plenty of relaxing downtime, you know)   image

    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

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,777Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    They're definitely multiplayer and online games, and MMO doesn't and shouldn't automatically imply MMORPG.

    That leaves the question as how many players it takes to be "massively" multiplayer, and that's nearly impossible to define.  Even if we agree that 2 players per instance is not massively multiplayer and 10,000 is, I don't think you can justify saying that n players per instance is not massively multiplayer and n+1 is for any value of n.

    And even if you could, the number of players per instance varies in many games, whether by area of the game, time of day, or whatever.  Surely it doesn't make sense to claim that a game is an MMO at peak hours and is not an MMO in the middle of the night.

     MMORPGs should be called MMORPGs, but some many people shorten it to MMO then wonder when games other than MMORPGS are called MMOs.

    The "extra" usages of MMO are ok.

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

    Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

    Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing...   image

    I have a real excuse to. I'm waiting for my program to compile so that the city builder aspects of my experimental RTS engine will finally be completed.

     

    Narius on the other hand has no time to post here because he can get a solid pub raid group inside 2 minutes with WoWs dungeon finder. Sure it destroyed gaming, but at least Narius is too busy to post on mmorpg.com now because his video games offer unprecedented accessibulity and convenience.

    Or was that just the dream I had last night that made me jizz in my pants?

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member

    Sounds like nariusseldon is admitting what many of us "old timers" have been saying for ages. The games have changed, not us.

    - 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

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,988Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    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

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,938Member Uncommon

    More like, the industry is trying every last thing it can think of to soft-pedal stripped down versions of everything AND charge for them.

    Diablo3 is only the worst offender of pushing the envelope. RMAH auction house that Bliz took a cut for, for a single player/co-op game. What a crock.

    MMOs these days, are nothing compared to the originals, simply because the developers have conditioned the gaming public to accept less: less game for their money and more money to play the games. And that is not a small part of the reason why newly released MMOs these days last 2-3 months and then crash.

    Anything getting the "MMO" tag is something that producers can "justify" having a cash shop / access fee for. That's it.

    And if the industry is "pushing" the definition of what an MMO is, it is only to charge the customer for something they were not able to before.

     

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    If LoL had 100 or more people per match it could be argued that it was an MMO. But it doesn't. And of course it would need to satisfy the other requirements as well, which it doesn't

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    MMO is decided by potential. As long as it has mechanics that enable massively multiplayer gameplay it would be an MMO.

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If these reductio ad absurdum edge cases are the best counter arguments you have I must come to the conclusion that the kingdom of God has come to earth and that sound I hear is the angels singing "Cuathon Wins" over and over.

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    ATITD is an MMO because game rounds last at least a year. Where the very exact cut off is for whats an MMO is irrelevant since no one can argue that at least 6 months isn't long enough.

    I repeat my previous statement about edge cases.

    I'll take a break from dreaming of a brighter Narius free future to answer this.

    I do believe that the persistance aspect is more appropriately applied to the effect while the player is gone. That is whether it lasts a month or a week if it lasts after the initiating player has gone than it satisfies the persistance requirement. If you feel the need t o be as nitpicky as the points I addressed in red were the persistance includes groups. That is LoL doesn't count because once the original 10 players in a match all quit the instance closes. Thusly instances in online worlds also fail to meet the MMO standard.

     

  • CuathonCuathon University City, NYPosts: 2,211Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,853Member Uncommon

    I'm not sure that an industry analysis' catagorization changes anything.  A game you can log into online to play with others, no matter the amount, is now considered an "MMO" because it's a term people recognize.  The industry itself is not changing because of certain buzzword tags.  It's closer to lazyness.

     

    I think the term "MMO" is pretty black and white.  We log into online games to play with others.  Play WITH others.  There you have "_MO" covered.  From there what you consider "Massive" if up to you.  Common sense would say that "massive" is pretty big but like Quiz asked: is that 100? 1,000? 10,000?

     

    If you consider 30 people "massive" in an online game then more power to you and even though I don't agree at least you were honest.

  • isslingissling San Francisco, CAPosts: 156Member Uncommon
    I thought they where killing mmorpg games as it was! It's pretty ironic that if your lucky one server is set aside for the rpg in mmorpg:(  Why don't they just drop the last three letters?
  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,988Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

    LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone".  image

    Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

     

     

    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

  • xeniarxeniar Posts: 805Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

    LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone".  image

    Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

     

     

    Your welcome to join the "Get of my lawn" club m8 :) we have a special dinosaur hall :)

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member
    Originally posted by issling
    I thought they where killing mmorpg games as it was! It's pretty ironic that if your lucky one server is set aside for the rpg in mmorpg:(  Why don't they just drop the last three letters?

    Because the RPG doesn't stand for what you mean and never has.It's any MMO game who's gameplay is descedant  from the CRPG genre which intself  descendant from the rulesets of PnP RPGs.It has nothing to do with not breaking lore with your public words and always being "in character" but with the conventions of the rulesets and mechanics.

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

    LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone".  image

    Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

     

     

    I wouldn't say you're alone there Ky. I've read enough where I know we don't have the same ideal MMORPG in mind, the basic mechanics behind what we think should be one are the same. (Just saying you're looking for more of a DAOC, I prefer more EQ. :) )

    But as far as the definition of MMO goes...from my experience with EQ and from when PoP got released this is what I've come up with. An MMO needs to have a persistant, living, breathing world to be considered one. The focus of the game should be the world and the player's interaction with it. Be that city / house building, different factions and your standing with them, RvR, etc depends on the dev's vision of what they want their game's identity. Anything that detracts from the world feeling (In EQ, when the PoP books or even portals to Luclin were introduced, shrinking the world) detracts from it.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,777Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

    LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone".  image

    Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

     

     

    I wouldn't say you're alone there Ky. I've read enough where I know we don't have the same ideal MMORPG in mind, the basic mechanics behind what we think should be one are the same. (Just saying you're looking for more of a DAOC, I prefer more EQ. :) )

    But as far as the definition of MMO goes...from my experience with EQ and from when PoP got released this is what I've come up with. An MMO needs to have a persistant, living, breathing world to be considered one. The focus of the game should be the world and the player's interaction with it. Be that city / house building, different factions and your standing with them, RvR, etc depends on the dev's vision of what they want their game's identity. Anything that detracts from the world feeling (In EQ, when the PoP books or even portals to Luclin were introduced, shrinking the world) detracts from it.

    That's not "in order to be an MMO".  That's "in order to be a game that you personally like".

    On another note, innovative games are often hard to classify, so having a "does this really count as genre X" discussion isn't a bad sign.

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

    That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

    What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

    And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

    If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

    If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

    Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

    These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

    All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

    -The Supreme Court Of The United States

    You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

    LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone".  image

    Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

     

     

    I wouldn't say you're alone there Ky. I've read enough where I know we don't have the same ideal MMORPG in mind, the basic mechanics behind what we think should be one are the same. (Just saying you're looking for more of a DAOC, I prefer more EQ. :) )

    But as far as the definition of MMO goes...from my experience with EQ and from when PoP got released this is what I've come up with. An MMO needs to have a persistant, living, breathing world to be considered one. The focus of the game should be the world and the player's interaction with it. Be that city / house building, different factions and your standing with them, RvR, etc depends on the dev's vision of what they want their game's identity. Anything that detracts from the world feeling (In EQ, when the PoP books or even portals to Luclin were introduced, shrinking the world) detracts from it.

    That's not "in order to be an MMO".  That's "in order to be a game that you personally like".

    On another note, innovative games are often hard to classify, so having a "does this really count as genre X" discussion isn't a bad sign.

    No, that's where you're wrong. I come here to talk about MMOs specifically, hence the domain MMORPG.com. If there's a game that claims to be an "MMO" and decides to go away from the core principles that an MMO should have I can find a better, single player or co-op game with a way better experience because they don't have to accommodate thousands of people at one time. Imagine that, someone who doesn't agree with you actually plays other games. What a concept. I get better graphics, better story (because in MY game, no one else has brought Guard X his 10 bear meat that he claims he needs before he starves) no Alienware / WoW is the first MMO spam in my chat, no one coming up and stealing my mobs, etc. When I want the experience of an MMO, I expect to get an MMO. Not some watered down single player experience with a chat channel.

    That's why we have labels for things. You don't expect to rent an action film with the expectations of renting a comedy do you? Buy a compact car and expect the towing capabilites of a truck? Order a steak bagel sandwich from McDonald's and expect prime rib from a 5 star restaurant?

    This will be my only reply to you by the way, because I know you are cut from the same mold that Nariu is.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon

    This point isn't really worth arguing anymore. It is rather evident that a majority disagrees with the minority that believe MMO does not have to be massive. The same minority is also saying that themeparks and f2p and more instanced stuff is what people want. Yet if you look at recent threads from both new users and old ones returning, they all show disdain for the current crop of MMO's out there. Furthermore, developers, who react to trends, are also starting to move away from the copy/paste market.

    Seriously, if you take a look, its only a handful of people arguing about semantics. We are going to have to accept that there are people who want to talk about regular multiplayer games on here. Who knows if they are trolling or truly believe what they say. Point is it isn't worth it.

    Instead of arguing what an MMO is and isn't, perhaps we just need to keep reporting the non MMO threads as they come in so they can be moved to the general gaming forum? I say make your point and move on. Last thing we need is a bunch of people who actually know what an MMO is, and come here to discuss a true MMO, to be banned as a result of arguing with those who don't care for the genre.

     

    And in regards to what number massive should be, I think it kind of goes with the flow of where we are at in the genre. What was once massive in 1998 it kind of mediocre now as technology has moved so far forward. EvE, while having a massive of people online in one single world online, isn't necessarily the staple point of what an MMO should be number wise. You can't really do that same thing with WoW due to its limitations (game world size and what not). Yet, WoW is absolutely an MMO. Where as we all know LoL is not.

     

    As for the original topic, it is not logical to take one site, two sites, or even a dozen sites that make such a claim and imply that the industry is making the change as a whole. If we were to jump to conclusions like that, tablets would be called slates (or some of the many others used when they were coming out). Of course we know they are not though. 

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,273Member Uncommon

    MMO = Lots of people playing at once.

    MMORPG = Persistant worlds with character progression.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    @OP - Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

    Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

    Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing (plenty of relaxing downtime, you know)   image

    Of course ... i actually didn't post much today .. because i am playing D3 and PS2. I mostlyl post during weekdays in between my analysis.

    And that is the point .. "old school MMORPG" is no longer the only definition of MMO. The genre change. In fact, the newzoo site is just more systematic about it. Many MMORPG site covers this expanded list of game.

    LOL, WOT are on this site.

    WOT is on the feature game list on massively.

    GW1 & DDO are covered on all of these sites too.

    Are these not facts?

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    @OP - Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

    Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

    Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing (plenty of relaxing downtime, you know)   image

    Of course ... i actually didn't post much today .. because i am playing D3 and PS2. I mostlyl post during weekdays in between my analysis.

    And that is the point .. "old school MMORPG" is no longer the only definition of MMO. The genre change. In fact, the newzoo site is just more systematic about it. Many MMORPG site covers this expanded list of game.

    LOL, WOT are on this site.

    WOT is on the feature game list on massively.

    GW1 & DDO are covered on all of these sites too.

    Are these not facts?

    They are covered here due to common interest. People misconstrue that to think they are classified as mmos as a result. They aren't.

     

    And just to add to this...they have their own specific forum and a general forum to discuss them in. 

  • OnomasOnomas Rock Hill, SCPosts: 1,128Member Uncommon

    Just because they are listed doesnt mean much lol. How do you think the people that run this site get money to keep it running? lol

    MMO has a set definition, mmorpg has a set definition. You can try to reason all you want. Most the games you speak of are MMOG, not MMORPG.

    Do you know the difference? Because your posts say otherwise.

    You need a certain criteria, and most the game you speak of dont have it.

    Battle arena for example, your LOL is not a MMO or a MMORPG. Even their main website does not claim its a MMO. Its a game with multiplayer support. You pair off and fight it out. The only thing persistant about this game is the statistics, and thats it. It is in no way or shape compared to a MMORPG, and they do not claim it to be.

    Official website for League of Legends. Join millions of players in an award winning Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.

    League of Legends is a session-based game. Matchmaking occurs based on the average.

     The game can currently be played in five different modes: Tutorial, Custom, Co-Op vs. AI, Normal and Ranked. Custom mode allows players to manually create custom game sessions that other players can find on a game list and join. Co-op vs. AI is a mode where players are matched either alone or as part of a group against a team of bots.

     

    And you are also the one that compares D3, xcom, and several other single player games to mmorpg's and say thats they way new mmo's all should be like. Seems you are confused, and after the past 2 weeks of your attempts, you are still the minority.

     

    Only you types of gamers keep coming up with new definitions for MMORPG's and other types of MMO's.

     

    OMG 30 PEOPLE CAN GET INTO THIS SERVER........... IT HAS TO BE A MMO image

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.