yay..... now we have to thoroughly explain with multiple paragraphs exactly what we are talking about, instead of simply using one word for it.
we can now call Quake 1, or any moderately populated online game that ever existed an MMO. how USEFUL the word now becomes!
small scale multiplayer...... massively multiplayer.... it all means the same thing in the end! nobody ever cares to make a distinction between various numbers anyways. fun is all that matters. not numbers. numbers couldn't at all have any relation to how fun or unique something is. what have numbers ever done for anyone anyways? with their silly overly-specific meanings. all numbers should be all inclusive, so we don't have to worry about what words we choose.
yay..... now we have to thoroughly explain with multiple paragraphs exactly what we are talking about, instead of simply using one word for it.
we can now call Quake 1, or any moderately populated online game that ever existed an MMO. how USEFUL the word now becomes!
small scale multiplayer...... massively multiplayer.... it all means the same thing in the end! nobody ever cares to make a distinction between various numbers anyways. fun is all that matters. not numbers. numbers couldn't at all have any relation to how fun or unique something is. what have numbers ever done for anyone anyways? with their silly overfly specific meanings. all numbers should be all inclusive, so we don't have to worry about what words we choose.
this is a BIG WIN FOR EVERYBODY!
progress in communication has been made!
I think "computer games" are a couple pretty good words, lol Seriously, though, I'm talking about making some room for creativity here. Use the space to tell people how your game works, and worry less about what category it fits into.
How many times am i gonna have to correct everyone on mmo vs mmorpg discussion
First of all mmo and mmorpg are coined terms for games(coined by 1 person), before any discussion, you need to decide do you accept what that person's definition of mmorpg and mmo is or not ? because if you disagree with it, and hate it then you're only arguying semantics when you try to prove a certain game is or is not mmo and mmorpg.
Ok lets use some logic now
MMO-Massively Multiplayer Online (which means its a broad designation for a myriad of sub-genre games, MMO-RPGFPSRTSRacingSocialetc ...
MMO-Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game ( and here's the catch, with the merging of rpg into the fps genre with CoD 4, and merging of rpg in almost any and all genres of game, there is confusion now, almost every game has rpg elements regardless of its base type.)
Do you see a pattern here ? a sub-genre definition of MMORPG has gain the same value as the main genre definition of MMO and the two are being used like they mean the same thing, like they are the same thing, people inter-change them all the time.
That's main discussion problem( you're arguying freaking semantics, ...)
What's the original definion of MMORPG
It must be:
a) a game that's hosted on dedicated servers(Peer 2 Peer, and hybrid hosting methods were not taken into account when the term was coined so there is a big discrepancy between the original meaning and today's implied meaning.
b) a game that has persistance(so any change to the game that any player does within the avaiable parameters of the given game must persist upon that player's quitting of the game.)
c)virtual world(no distinction between instanced or seamless, so a virtual world enabling interaction between multiple people(no definition of whether the interaction is 1D,2D,3D,etc, ...)
d)Massive(no default values so everybody can interpret this as they want, let's use logic:
1 person-single player
2 people-? co-op (with what 2-4 being co-op ? 2-6 ? 2-7 players ? real value uknown)
between 2 to whatever a co-op limit is.
Llets say 64 people lobby-based game ?(what if the game does not have a lobby ?, guild wars 1 style, vindictus style ? WRONG WRONG WRONG, you use all the players connected to the game servers(backend hardware,not WoW-style servers) as a measure of massive, so not the players within a single area/instance/shard. Ok 64 a common max number of players for multiplayer games in the past decade and a half, let's take Battlefield 3 for instance, not a mmorpg, not even an mmo, 64 players max per map, but then again more players connected to a server, see the connection here, it's hard to discern what you should use to test for massive ammounts of players.
And here's the second confusion which produces argument, people confusing servers from a hardware point of view with servers from a consumer's point of view.
Let's use logic again, The definition MMORPG, would take into account the amount of people connected to a backend server as a hardware component, and conclude that if there is a "massive ammount" of people connected to it that game is then a MMO(Its massive, it's multiplayer and it requires online connection to access the server, This would mean any game that has more than 64 people connected to a dedicated hardware server station is an MMO(regardless of if those even 3 of those 64 players can actually interact with each other on a specific shard). A server station can service multiple "wow-style servers a consumer sees on 1 "server"(shard), hence more confusion entails.
But then again today, because of changes that happened, we might have to consider a instance of the map or game world as 1 server, as you would consider a WoW/GW2/anything server/shard and just forget the mumbo-jumbo happenning on the other side.
if games with up to 64 people are still not considered mmos, let's take 64 as a value so with co-op ending somewhere between 2 and 64 people, and multiplayer games ending with 64 people, any game with more than 64 people connected at the same time, in a persistant world with the capabality of interaction with each-other in a visual or otherwise different manner is an MMO.
64 players- infnite ammount of players - Massive Multiplayer Online
So does the game have Role-Playing Features ?, do you control a distinct avatar of some sort, is a fantasy or a sci-fi, or some other distinct setting ?, are combat and other systems reminiscent of Dungeons&Dragons or similar things, are the dice rolling the background(does it matter if there is dice rolling or not ?) Now wouldn't all of this cement a game into a being an RPG ?, a now broad definion for pretty much everything that's allows any sort of customization or item randomization.
Then in conclusion what i consider an MMORPG, is a slight addition to the original mmorpg definion and that is a :
Game that has more than 64 people connected together in a virtual world,
Interacting with each other in any dimensional manner,
While having the power to influence that world,
and for the changes to persist through logging out and logging back into the game.
In addition the previous, players must connect to a big server in a manner, and have data on the company servers that is not present on a personal computer, online access of course mandatory, and i take any system from any RPG game ever made as proof that the game qualifies as RPG itself.
When you have marketing people determining the nature of appelations, you don't get much useful.
You could probably devise a taxonomic system, Order-Family-Genus-Species type thing; if you were really fanatical. Also possible would be a more function based thing, Carnivore-Omnivore-Herbivore.
Your personal feelings about what's what are just that.
As an aside, a lot of professional writers are really unhappy about the loss of detail in the meanings of words in this era, so welcome to the club!
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
WoW's entire endgame is based on small scale groups, dungeons and raids. Also very small scale PvP.
Leages of Legend doesn't have an open world? Well...
WoW world is open...most of the players stand in the city waiting for queues to pop. You only see the world while leveling. In the end, its no different than LoL.
If WoW is considered an MMO, so too should LoL.
Things change and evolve...graphics evolve...game genres evolve...if things didn't change, we would still be in the old days. Everything has to evolve to progress and move forward. Just take a look at Steam and Amazon...no need to go to a gamestop to buy PC games...just download them in seconds. Amazon controls the book market, and Barnes and Nobles and similar stores are going bankrupt.
For the MMO genre to evolve, it has to change and meet what the MAJORITY of people want. And that is quick to get in and out style games, less open world and more game/fun. Games like WoW, LoL and many other games now considered MMOs to the industry.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I don't know that people are surprised so much that they are not happy with the idea that the term can just change.
I think it's safe to say that this message board stands as a monument to just how badly players, in general, oppose change.
Particularly if we get to argue about it a lot along the way.
People aren't opposing change, they are complaining about lack of common sense. You CAN argue what MMO means, but you will be wrong if it isn't what it is by definition. An MMO by definition doesn't need a persistent world, it doesn't need levels, it doesnt need an RPG component, but it does require a massive amount of people playing a game together to be able to meet up in one place, at the same time, playing the same game. If you had 100 countries, and in each country 10 people were protesting you would not call it massive. If you had 1000 people in 1 country protesting it is pretty massive.
I don't think anyone here doesn't want the kind of regular multiplayer games that the OP likes to be made, its just that they already have classifications and as such shouldn't be misunderstood to be an MMO as they are missing the "massive multiplayer" part. Its all well and good that they have the _MO part, but they aren't MMO. I am not arguing the point so much as giving one last ditch effort in trying to explain to those who don't understand what an MMO is, that people are upset because you are trying to redefine something into something that doesn't make sense. You are basically asking me to call a motorcycle a car because they both have engines and wheels. It makes NO sense. So of course you are going to get backlash.
This is only made worse considering that the vast majority of sites, people and most importantly developers, do not call these multiplayer games an MMO. Even this site does not call D3 an MMO, yet some argue the point just because it exists here.
Oh well. Good luck trying to get the people to think otherwise. I applaud the tenacity of those trying to defy logic. Keep on fighting your fight!
WoW's entire endgame is based on small scale groups, dungeons and raids. Also very small scale PvP.
Leages of Legend doesn't have an open world? Well...
WoW world is open...most of the players stand in the city waiting for queues to pop. You only see the world while leveling. In the end, its no different than LoL.
If WoW is considered an MMO, so too should LoL.
Things change and evolve...graphics evolve...game genres evolve...if things didn't change, we would still be in the old days. Everything has to evolve to progress and move forward. Just take a look at Steam and Amazon...no need to go to a gamestop to buy PC games...just download them in seconds. Amazon controls the book market, and Barnes and Nobles and similar stores are going bankrupt.
For the MMO genre to evolve, it has to change and meet what the MAJORITY of people want. And that is quick to get in and out style games, less open world and more game/fun. Games like WoW, LoL and many other games now considered MMOs to the industry.
Well, that is what WoW has devolved into. WoW is an MMO because people CAN and WILL meet up in areas where they can all play the game together in massive numbers. In LoL you CANNOT do that. It's actually exceptionally easy to understand.
Also, the MMO genre can evolve, but by calling mulitplayer games, or in your case, arguing that LoL which is alrready defined as a MOBA an MMO is asking it the genre to regress. If people want quick in and out games, they have them. There are MMO versions, SP versions, MP versions, COOP versions.... And WoW just happens to offer MMO gameplay via the open world that is accessible to massive amounts of people at one time, and multiplayer options which are presented as dungeons. The reason WoW is so popular still is it attracts 2 markets. It's a great thing for those who want it, and as WoW has the MMO portion it absolutely belongs under the MMO category.
However, why you would argue against RIOT who makes LoL and calls it a MOBA and has stated on their forums it is not an MMO just confuses me.
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.
i have always accepted that MMO is separate from MMORPG and as more genres have a massive multiplayer online following, they are welcome to the MMO description. The RPG part is where I expect to find a world ... not the MMO portion. As Far as LOL goes, I view it as thousands of instanced runs, similar to dungeon runs in many MMORPGs but with out a world. Therefore it satisfies the MMO portion of the definition even though it is more commonly referred to as MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. I can accept either reference.
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.
i have always accepted that MMO is separate from MMORPG and as more genres have a massive multiplayer online following, they are welcome to the MMO description. The RPG part is where I expect to find a world ... not the MMO portion. As Far as LOL goes, I view it as thousands of instanced runs, similar to dungeon runs in many MMORPGs but with out a world. Therefore it satisfies the MMO portion of the definition even though it is more commonly referred to as MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. I can accept either reference.
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.
i have always accepted that MMO is separate from MMORPG and as more genres have a massive multiplayer online following, they are welcome to the MMO description. The RPG part is where I expect to find a world ... not the MMO portion. As Far as LOL goes, I view it as thousands of instanced runs, similar to dungeon runs in many MMORPGs but with out a world. Therefore it satisfies the MMO portion of the definition even though it is more commonly referred to as MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. I can accept either reference.
You are actually wrong by definition.
I actually accept either regardless of definition. Have a nice day
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.
i have always accepted that MMO is separate from MMORPG and as more genres have a massive multiplayer online following, they are welcome to the MMO description. The RPG part is where I expect to find a world ... not the MMO portion. As Far as LOL goes, I view it as thousands of instanced runs, similar to dungeon runs in many MMORPGs but with out a world. Therefore it satisfies the MMO portion of the definition even though it is more commonly referred to as MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. I can accept either reference.
You are actually wrong by definition.
I actually accept either regardless of definition. Have a nice day
You can accept that, but just because you say 2+2=5 and accept it, it doesn't make it right. I really do hope you have a nice day regardless though.
Well, that is what WoW has devolved into. WoW is an MMO because people CAN and WILL meet up in areas where they can all play the game together in massive numbers. In LoL you CANNOT do that. It's actually exceptionally easy to understand.
Also, the MMO genre can evolve, but by calling mulitplayer games, or in your case, arguing that LoL which is alrready defined as a MOBA an MMO is asking it the genre to regress. If people want quick in and out games, they have them. There are MMO versions, SP versions, MP versions, COOP versions.... And WoW just happens to offer MMO gameplay via the open world that is accessible to massive amounts of people at one time, and multiplayer options which are presented as dungeons. The reason WoW is so popular still is it attracts 2 markets. It's a great thing for those who want it, and as WoW has the MMO portion it absolutely belongs under the MMO category.
However, why you would argue against RIOT who makes LoL and calls it a MOBA and has stated on their forums it is not an MMO just confuses me.
Who gives a crap how Riot Games chooses to classify it's own title. On this site we make everything up. "Up", you say? Ha ha ha ha. Not even close; in these parts we call it diagonal. Why? Well, we have found that time is better spent arguing pointless semantics over and over again instead of discussing the games themselves. You should try it sometime, it's crazy fun (I just gave you a toes up )
"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
Well, that is what WoW has devolved into. WoW is an MMO because people CAN and WILL meet up in areas where they can all play the game together in massive numbers. In LoL you CANNOT do that. It's actually exceptionally easy to understand.
Also, the MMO genre can evolve, but by calling mulitplayer games, or in your case, arguing that LoL which is alrready defined as a MOBA an MMO is asking it the genre to regress. If people want quick in and out games, they have them. There are MMO versions, SP versions, MP versions, COOP versions.... And WoW just happens to offer MMO gameplay via the open world that is accessible to massive amounts of people at one time, and multiplayer options which are presented as dungeons. The reason WoW is so popular still is it attracts 2 markets. It's a great thing for those who want it, and as WoW has the MMO portion it absolutely belongs under the MMO category.
However, why you would argue against RIOT who makes LoL and calls it a MOBA and has stated on their forums it is not an MMO just confuses me.
Who gives a crap how Riot Games chooses to classify it's own title. On this site we make everything up. "Up", you say? Ha ha ha ha. Not even close; in these parts we call it diagonal. Why? Well, we have found that time is better spent arguing pointless semantics over and over again instead of discussing the games themselves. You should try it sometime, it's crazy fun (I just gave you a toes up )
I don't know you, but I like you in a purely platonic way. You win.
Originally posted by Indol How does the term MMO help to describe LoL?If both WoW and LoL are to be considered MMO's, then what purpose is there to use the term MMO other than "this game is played online.".If you told someone that was unfamiliar with either WoW or LoL that they were "both MMO's" that would only serve to obfuscate the fact that they're completely and utterly different games on a very basic level.Categorizations like MMO and MOBA are there to clearly define what a game is. If LoL can be categorized as an MMO, then what do you call WoW? If you call them both MMO's, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing other than replacing the word 'online' with MMO while simultaneously disregarding the specifics of each game, which is 100% pointless and confusing.Instead of blindly following the industries suit, you should stop and ask yourself if it is intelligent to do so.
You should also ask yourself if it makes sense to purposely use a word differently than most other people just because you don't like the way it's being used. You should also ask yourself if maybe you should abandon the use of the ambiguous word, in favor of something less ambiguous.
Call WoW an MMORPG, not an MMO. Call LoL a MOBA, not an MMO. Then, instead of getting bent out of shape over stuff like this, when someone asks you, you can explain how WoW is an MMORPG and how LoL is a MOBA, and how the term MMO is ambiguous.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think the "industry" is specifically saying LoL, for example, is considered a "Massively Multiplayer Online" game. The term is used because it's recognizable.
Originally posted by Indol How does the term MMO help to describe LoL?
If both WoW and LoL are to be considered MMO's, then what purpose is there to use the term MMO other than "this game is played online.".
If you told someone that was unfamiliar with either WoW or LoL that they were "both MMO's" that would only serve to obfuscate the fact that they're completely and utterly different games on a very basic level.
Categorizations like MMO and MOBA are there to clearly define what a game is. If LoL can be categorized as an MMO, then what do you call WoW? If you call them both MMO's, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing other than replacing the word 'online' with MMO while simultaneously disregarding the specifics of each game, which is 100% pointless and confusing.
Instead of blindly following the industries suit, you should stop and ask yourself if it is intelligent to do so.
You should also ask yourself if it makes sense to purposely use a word differently than most other people just because you don't like the way it's being used. You should also ask yourself if maybe you should abandon the use of the ambiguous word, in favor of something less ambiguous.
Call WoW an MMORPG, not an MMO. Call LoL a MOBA, not an MMO. Then, instead of getting bent out of shape over stuff like this, when someone asks you, you can explain how WoW is an MMORPG and how LoL is a MOBA, and how the term MMO is ambiguous.
I don't think most people would describe LoL as an MMO. And I didn't mean to imply that I or anyone should consider any game just an MMO, but the term is still useful to describe the manner in which players interact proportionally.
I was simply attempting to explain the pointlessness of calling LoL or any other regular multiplayer online game an MMO of any kind, since that would only serve to ignore the purpose of the term MMO and consequently games that were previously largely defined by it would have no definition. We would have to invent a new term to describe games like WoW and EVE since MMO would no longer be indicative of games with massive amounts of people playing together as an interactive populace, RPG or not.
At one point the term MMO had a universally clear and useful purpose and there's no reason it shouldn't retain that function instead of devolving into something we already have a term for (Online). That's all i'm sayin.
MMO = Lots of people playing at once by way of the internet.
MMORPG = Lots of people playing online in a persistant world that focuses on character progression and sometimes roleplay.
Edited for more specific wording, and largely agreed. The funny thing is character progression now just means levels and bigger better loot. Roleplay is limited to a subset of the gaming community, and in games like Warcraft receives little to no attention from the development team.
I guess what I'm getting at here is now we have to define Roleplay. Because to me roleplay isn't waiting for 9 or 24 other people to get their crap together so we can execute a predefined strategy to kill the Big Bad so I can loot a Shiny Longsword Of Shimmering Fabulousness.
Originally posted by Indol How does the term MMO help to describe LoL?
If both WoW and LoL are to be considered MMO's, then what purpose is there to use the term MMO other than "this game is played online.".
If you told someone that was unfamiliar with either WoW or LoL that they were "both MMO's" that would only serve to obfuscate the fact that they're completely and utterly different games on a very basic level.
Categorizations like MMO and MOBA are there to clearly define what a game is. If LoL can be categorized as an MMO, then what do you call WoW? If you call them both MMO's, you're accomplishing absolutely nothing other than replacing the word 'online' with MMO while simultaneously disregarding the specifics of each game, which is 100% pointless and confusing.
Instead of blindly following the industries suit, you should stop and ask yourself if it is intelligent to do so.
You should also ask yourself if it makes sense to purposely use a word differently than most other people just because you don't like the way it's being used. You should also ask yourself if maybe you should abandon the use of the ambiguous word, in favor of something less ambiguous.
Call WoW an MMORPG, not an MMO. Call LoL a MOBA, not an MMO. Then, instead of getting bent out of shape over stuff like this, when someone asks you, you can explain how WoW is an MMORPG and how LoL is a MOBA, and how the term MMO is ambiguous.
I don't think most people would describe LoL as an MMO. And I didn't mean to imply that I or anyone should consider any game just an MMO, but the term is still useful to describe the manner in which players interact proportionally.
I was simply attempting to explain the pointlessness of calling LoL or any other regular multiplayer online game an MMO of any kind, since that would only serve to ignore the purpose of the term MMO and consequently games that were previously largely defined by it would have no definition. We would have to invent a new term to describe games like WoW and EVE since MMO would no longer be indicative of games with massive amounts of people playing together as an interactive populace, RPG or not.
At one point the term MMO had a universally clear and useful purpose and there's no reason it shouldn't retain that function instead of devolving into something we already have a term for (Online). That's all i'm sayin.
The term MMO is still clear. Do not let an extremely small group of MMORPG forum goers tell you otherwise. Newzoo does not represent "the industry" as a whole. They did research on online games that have a very large playerbase and chose to include (wisely I might add) LoL under their research. Why? It applies. Their study in no way implies that LoL is actually an MMO. The site simply uses it as a blanket term as the majority of games they reported on were MMO's. However, the people who would want this research and also find it important wouldn't want a behemoth such as LoL to be left out. While it may not be an MMO, they have captured an online community that is either nearly, or totally unmatched. This stats report was in no way trying to make a statement, nor was it trying to redefine anything.
Furthermore, the industry has many faces and representatives. Of which, the developers and review sites are included. Know who doesnt call LoL or DOTA an MMO? Well, take a gander at this list: Valve, RIOT, PC Gamer, Gamespy, IGN, Engadget, Gamespot, MMORPG.com (yes, the very site they are arguing on calls it a MOBA), the guys at various moba websites such as mobafire.
Also, the players on the LoL forums are VERY aware they are not playing an MMO. To go one step further, unlike the few posters here that are stirring the pot, they understand the need and importance of not calling a moba an mmo, or mixing up genres. For instance, this thread here they discuss the term MOBA and how it formed out of a different meaning:
Now, I have read many threads in the past about how they group LoL with MMO's knowing its not an MMO, but as it's still somewhat a newer market to many people, MOBA hasn't exactly taken off or become to widely known. I could not find the specific links, but here is a community representative for RIOT referencing that they were grouped with MMO as there wasn't a proper category for them yet. The post also references that the Golden Joystick awards also understands LoL isn't an MMO but it had to be grouped somewhere. The reason it was grouped was because it would be a shame to not include it at all. Like music, certain types of things are grouped at first even though they are different just because they share like qualities. It does not mean that heavy metal is death metal just because they are both metal. Anyway, here is the post:
So, if the players, developers, reviewers, people who give out awards, tournament hosts and more do not call LoL or Dota an MMO and even go so far as to specifically remove the MASSIVE part from the descriptor, (ie; MOBA), then why should we get upset that a handful of guys on here call it an MMO? Its they who are confused. Remember, just because there are 10 million people playing chess online right now, on a board that some would consider persistant, does not make it an MMO. It makes it massively popular though hahah.
So yeah, lets just ignore this crap going forward. If someone makes a post about a non-mmo game here, the moderators will move it to the general gaming forum as they always do if someone reports it.
Originally posted by Aelious I don't think the "industry" is specifically saying LoL, for example, is considered a "Massively Multiplayer Online" game. The term is used because it's recognizable.
But the "industry" is not excluding it from the MMO category. It is quite clear in the newzoo report. It is quite clear that massively covers LOL. It is quite clear that it is listed as one on this website.
While even Riot called LOL a MOBA, most are still grouping it as a MMO.
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.
I believe games like D3, LoL, and WoT definately do NOT belong here. I've advocated for years here on the forums that they should stick to their name's sake. If you took out all the hybrids, things would definately be slow around here. Like it or not, new MMORPGs come in waves. Over the past 15 years we've seen 2-3 year gaps between highly anticipated AAA games. I believe these games are tapping into the MMORPG name to seek investor funding on the coat tails of games like EQ and WoW. As long as people playing hybrids like D3 and WoT can remember they are not playing MMORPGs, I think we can all get along.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Originally posted by Magiknight Any words that comes to mean anything mean nothing. That is what is happening to "Massively Multiplayer Online"
To me they always meant a lot of people online in the same game. That hasn't changed.
+1
I'm not understanding what other magical definitions other people are coming up with, but it's pretty self explanatory.
There are people in these forums arguing that COD, D3, and facebook are MMOs. Even calling LOL a MMO is bending the definition. LOL does not have a lot of people online in the same game. It has somewhere around 10 people online in the same game.
Adding instances to games bends the definition. The people that enter an instance are no longer in the same game as the rest of the population. The party that enters an instance are just off in their own little world with a small number of other people.
Comments
s/expanding/obliterating
yay..... now we have to thoroughly explain with multiple paragraphs exactly what we are talking about, instead of simply using one word for it.
we can now call Quake 1, or any moderately populated online game that ever existed an MMO. how USEFUL the word now becomes!
small scale multiplayer...... massively multiplayer.... it all means the same thing in the end! nobody ever cares to make a distinction between various numbers anyways. fun is all that matters. not numbers. numbers couldn't at all have any relation to how fun or unique something is. what have numbers ever done for anyone anyways? with their silly overly-specific meanings. all numbers should be all inclusive, so we don't have to worry about what words we choose.
this is a BIG WIN FOR EVERYBODY!
progress in communication has been made!
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
I think "computer games" are a couple pretty good words, lol Seriously, though, I'm talking about making some room for creativity here. Use the space to tell people how your game works, and worry less about what category it fits into.
How many times am i gonna have to correct everyone on mmo vs mmorpg discussion
First of all mmo and mmorpg are coined terms for games(coined by 1 person), before any discussion, you need to decide do you accept what that person's definition of mmorpg and mmo is or not ? because if you disagree with it, and hate it then you're only arguying semantics when you try to prove a certain game is or is not mmo and mmorpg.
Ok lets use some logic now
MMO-Massively Multiplayer Online (which means its a broad designation for a myriad of sub-genre games, MMO-RPGFPSRTSRacingSocialetc ...
MMO-Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game ( and here's the catch, with the merging of rpg into the fps genre with CoD 4, and merging of rpg in almost any and all genres of game, there is confusion now, almost every game has rpg elements regardless of its base type.)
Do you see a pattern here ? a sub-genre definition of MMORPG has gain the same value as the main genre definition of MMO and the two are being used like they mean the same thing, like they are the same thing, people inter-change them all the time.
That's main discussion problem( you're arguying freaking semantics, ...)
What's the original definion of MMORPG
It must be:
a) a game that's hosted on dedicated servers(Peer 2 Peer, and hybrid hosting methods were not taken into account when the term was coined so there is a big discrepancy between the original meaning and today's implied meaning.
b) a game that has persistance(so any change to the game that any player does within the avaiable parameters of the given game must persist upon that player's quitting of the game.)
c)virtual world(no distinction between instanced or seamless, so a virtual world enabling interaction between multiple people(no definition of whether the interaction is 1D,2D,3D,etc, ...)
d)Massive(no default values so everybody can interpret this as they want, let's use logic:
1 person-single player
2 people-? co-op (with what 2-4 being co-op ? 2-6 ? 2-7 players ? real value uknown)
between 2 to whatever a co-op limit is.
Llets say 64 people lobby-based game ?(what if the game does not have a lobby ?, guild wars 1 style, vindictus style ? WRONG WRONG WRONG, you use all the players connected to the game servers(backend hardware,not WoW-style servers) as a measure of massive, so not the players within a single area/instance/shard. Ok 64 a common max number of players for multiplayer games in the past decade and a half, let's take Battlefield 3 for instance, not a mmorpg, not even an mmo, 64 players max per map, but then again more players connected to a server, see the connection here, it's hard to discern what you should use to test for massive ammounts of players.
And here's the second confusion which produces argument, people confusing servers from a hardware point of view with servers from a consumer's point of view.
Let's use logic again, The definition MMORPG, would take into account the amount of people connected to a backend server as a hardware component, and conclude that if there is a "massive ammount" of people connected to it that game is then a MMO(Its massive, it's multiplayer and it requires online connection to access the server, This would mean any game that has more than 64 people connected to a dedicated hardware server station is an MMO(regardless of if those even 3 of those 64 players can actually interact with each other on a specific shard). A server station can service multiple "wow-style servers a consumer sees on 1 "server"(shard), hence more confusion entails.
But then again today, because of changes that happened, we might have to consider a instance of the map or game world as 1 server, as you would consider a WoW/GW2/anything server/shard and just forget the mumbo-jumbo happenning on the other side.
if games with up to 64 people are still not considered mmos, let's take 64 as a value so with co-op ending somewhere between 2 and 64 people, and multiplayer games ending with 64 people, any game with more than 64 people connected at the same time, in a persistant world with the capabality of interaction with each-other in a visual or otherwise different manner is an MMO.
64 players- infnite ammount of players - Massive Multiplayer Online
So does the game have Role-Playing Features ?, do you control a distinct avatar of some sort, is a fantasy or a sci-fi, or some other distinct setting ?, are combat and other systems reminiscent of Dungeons&Dragons or similar things, are the dice rolling the background(does it matter if there is dice rolling or not ?) Now wouldn't all of this cement a game into a being an RPG ?, a now broad definion for pretty much everything that's allows any sort of customization or item randomization.
Then in conclusion what i consider an MMORPG, is a slight addition to the original mmorpg definion and that is a :
Game that has more than 64 people connected together in a virtual world,
Interacting with each other in any dimensional manner,
While having the power to influence that world,
and for the changes to persist through logging out and logging back into the game.
In addition the previous, players must connect to a big server in a manner, and have data on the company servers that is not present on a personal computer, online access of course mandatory, and i take any system from any RPG game ever made as proof that the game qualifies as RPG itself.
Questions ?
When you have marketing people determining the nature of appelations, you don't get much useful.
You could probably devise a taxonomic system, Order-Family-Genus-Species type thing; if you were really fanatical. Also possible would be a more function based thing, Carnivore-Omnivore-Herbivore.
Your personal feelings about what's what are just that.
As an aside, a lot of professional writers are really unhappy about the loss of detail in the meanings of words in this era, so welcome to the club!
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
What makes WoW a MMO and Leages of Legend not?
WoW's entire endgame is based on small scale groups, dungeons and raids. Also very small scale PvP.
Leages of Legend doesn't have an open world? Well...
WoW world is open...most of the players stand in the city waiting for queues to pop. You only see the world while leveling. In the end, its no different than LoL.
If WoW is considered an MMO, so too should LoL.
Things change and evolve...graphics evolve...game genres evolve...if things didn't change, we would still be in the old days. Everything has to evolve to progress and move forward. Just take a look at Steam and Amazon...no need to go to a gamestop to buy PC games...just download them in seconds. Amazon controls the book market, and Barnes and Nobles and similar stores are going bankrupt.
For the MMO genre to evolve, it has to change and meet what the MAJORITY of people want. And that is quick to get in and out style games, less open world and more game/fun. Games like WoW, LoL and many other games now considered MMOs to the industry.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
People aren't opposing change, they are complaining about lack of common sense. You CAN argue what MMO means, but you will be wrong if it isn't what it is by definition. An MMO by definition doesn't need a persistent world, it doesn't need levels, it doesnt need an RPG component, but it does require a massive amount of people playing a game together to be able to meet up in one place, at the same time, playing the same game. If you had 100 countries, and in each country 10 people were protesting you would not call it massive. If you had 1000 people in 1 country protesting it is pretty massive.
I don't think anyone here doesn't want the kind of regular multiplayer games that the OP likes to be made, its just that they already have classifications and as such shouldn't be misunderstood to be an MMO as they are missing the "massive multiplayer" part. Its all well and good that they have the _MO part, but they aren't MMO. I am not arguing the point so much as giving one last ditch effort in trying to explain to those who don't understand what an MMO is, that people are upset because you are trying to redefine something into something that doesn't make sense. You are basically asking me to call a motorcycle a car because they both have engines and wheels. It makes NO sense. So of course you are going to get backlash.
This is only made worse considering that the vast majority of sites, people and most importantly developers, do not call these multiplayer games an MMO. Even this site does not call D3 an MMO, yet some argue the point just because it exists here.
Oh well. Good luck trying to get the people to think otherwise. I applaud the tenacity of those trying to defy logic. Keep on fighting your fight!
Well, that is what WoW has devolved into. WoW is an MMO because people CAN and WILL meet up in areas where they can all play the game together in massive numbers. In LoL you CANNOT do that. It's actually exceptionally easy to understand.
Also, the MMO genre can evolve, but by calling mulitplayer games, or in your case, arguing that LoL which is alrready defined as a MOBA an MMO is asking it the genre to regress. If people want quick in and out games, they have them. There are MMO versions, SP versions, MP versions, COOP versions.... And WoW just happens to offer MMO gameplay via the open world that is accessible to massive amounts of people at one time, and multiplayer options which are presented as dungeons. The reason WoW is so popular still is it attracts 2 markets. It's a great thing for those who want it, and as WoW has the MMO portion it absolutely belongs under the MMO category.
However, why you would argue against RIOT who makes LoL and calls it a MOBA and has stated on their forums it is not an MMO just confuses me.
i have always accepted that MMO is separate from MMORPG and as more genres have a massive multiplayer online following, they are welcome to the MMO description. The RPG part is where I expect to find a world ... not the MMO portion. As Far as LOL goes, I view it as thousands of instanced runs, similar to dungeon runs in many MMORPGs but with out a world. Therefore it satisfies the MMO portion of the definition even though it is more commonly referred to as MOBA - Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. I can accept either reference.
You are actually wrong by definition.
I actually accept either regardless of definition. Have a nice day
You can accept that, but just because you say 2+2=5 and accept it, it doesn't make it right. I really do hope you have a nice day regardless though.
Who gives a crap how Riot Games chooses to classify it's own title. On this site we make everything up. "Up", you say? Ha ha ha ha. Not even close; in these parts we call it diagonal. Why? Well, we have found that time is better spent arguing pointless semantics over and over again instead of discussing the games themselves. You should try it sometime, it's crazy fun
(I just gave you a toes up 
)
"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
I don't know you, but I like you in a purely platonic way. You win.
You should also ask yourself if it makes sense to purposely use a word differently than most other people just because you don't like the way it's being used. You should also ask yourself if maybe you should abandon the use of the ambiguous word, in favor of something less ambiguous.
Call WoW an MMORPG, not an MMO. Call LoL a MOBA, not an MMO. Then, instead of getting bent out of shape over stuff like this, when someone asks you, you can explain how WoW is an MMORPG and how LoL is a MOBA, and how the term MMO is ambiguous.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't think most people would describe LoL as an MMO. And I didn't mean to imply that I or anyone should consider any game just an MMO, but the term is still useful to describe the manner in which players interact proportionally.
I was simply attempting to explain the pointlessness of calling LoL or any other regular multiplayer online game an MMO of any kind, since that would only serve to ignore the purpose of the term MMO and consequently games that were previously largely defined by it would have no definition. We would have to invent a new term to describe games like WoW and EVE since MMO would no longer be indicative of games with massive amounts of people playing together as an interactive populace, RPG or not.
At one point the term MMO had a universally clear and useful purpose and there's no reason it shouldn't retain that function instead of devolving into something we already have a term for (Online). That's all i'm sayin.
Edited for more specific wording, and largely agreed. The funny thing is character progression now just means levels and bigger better loot. Roleplay is limited to a subset of the gaming community, and in games like Warcraft receives little to no attention from the development team.
I guess what I'm getting at here is now we have to define Roleplay. Because to me roleplay isn't waiting for 9 or 24 other people to get their crap together so we can execute a predefined strategy to kill the Big Bad so I can loot a Shiny Longsword Of Shimmering Fabulousness.
The term MMO is still clear. Do not let an extremely small group of MMORPG forum goers tell you otherwise. Newzoo does not represent "the industry" as a whole. They did research on online games that have a very large playerbase and chose to include (wisely I might add) LoL under their research. Why? It applies. Their study in no way implies that LoL is actually an MMO. The site simply uses it as a blanket term as the majority of games they reported on were MMO's. However, the people who would want this research and also find it important wouldn't want a behemoth such as LoL to be left out. While it may not be an MMO, they have captured an online community that is either nearly, or totally unmatched. This stats report was in no way trying to make a statement, nor was it trying to redefine anything.
Furthermore, the industry has many faces and representatives. Of which, the developers and review sites are included. Know who doesnt call LoL or DOTA an MMO? Well, take a gander at this list: Valve, RIOT, PC Gamer, Gamespy, IGN, Engadget, Gamespot, MMORPG.com (yes, the very site they are arguing on calls it a MOBA), the guys at various moba websites such as mobafire.
Also, the players on the LoL forums are VERY aware they are not playing an MMO. To go one step further, unlike the few posters here that are stirring the pot, they understand the need and importance of not calling a moba an mmo, or mixing up genres. For instance, this thread here they discuss the term MOBA and how it formed out of a different meaning:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=378817
If you do a search, there are even posters who want an MMO version of LoL.
Also, the popular site Massively even has an article that covers games like D3 and LoL, called "Not so massively" found here:
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/15/not-so-massively-moba-development-lol-tournament-cheating-and/
Now, I have read many threads in the past about how they group LoL with MMO's knowing its not an MMO, but as it's still somewhat a newer market to many people, MOBA hasn't exactly taken off or become to widely known. I could not find the specific links, but here is a community representative for RIOT referencing that they were grouped with MMO as there wasn't a proper category for them yet. The post also references that the Golden Joystick awards also understands LoL isn't an MMO but it had to be grouped somewhere. The reason it was grouped was because it would be a shame to not include it at all. Like music, certain types of things are grouped at first even though they are different just because they share like qualities. It does not mean that heavy metal is death metal just because they are both metal. Anyway, here is the post:
http://euw.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=9031781
So, if the players, developers, reviewers, people who give out awards, tournament hosts and more do not call LoL or Dota an MMO and even go so far as to specifically remove the MASSIVE part from the descriptor, (ie; MOBA), then why should we get upset that a handful of guys on here call it an MMO? Its they who are confused. Remember, just because there are 10 million people playing chess online right now, on a board that some would consider persistant, does not make it an MMO. It makes it massively popular though hahah.
So yeah, lets just ignore this crap going forward. If someone makes a post about a non-mmo game here, the moderators will move it to the general gaming forum as they always do if someone reports it.
But the "industry" is not excluding it from the MMO category. It is quite clear in the newzoo report. It is quite clear that massively covers LOL. It is quite clear that it is listed as one on this website.
While even Riot called LOL a MOBA, most are still grouping it as a MMO.
Well, it does mean that you have to have an online component, and you have to be able to play with others.
So you can exclude things like Mark of the Ninja, and the first dead space.
It is not meaningless if you can exlcude some game. It is just a matter of degree of how broad the term is.
To me they always meant a lot of people online in the same game. That hasn't changed.
+1
I'm not understanding what other magical definitions other people are coming up with, but it's pretty self explanatory.
I believe games like D3, LoL, and WoT definately do NOT belong here. I've advocated for years here on the forums that they should stick to their name's sake. If you took out all the hybrids, things would definately be slow around here. Like it or not, new MMORPGs come in waves. Over the past 15 years we've seen 2-3 year gaps between highly anticipated AAA games. I believe these games are tapping into the MMORPG name to seek investor funding on the coat tails of games like EQ and WoW. As long as people playing hybrids like D3 and WoT can remember they are not playing MMORPGs, I think we can all get along.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
There are people in these forums arguing that COD, D3, and facebook are MMOs. Even calling LOL a MMO is bending the definition. LOL does not have a lot of people online in the same game. It has somewhere around 10 people online in the same game.
Adding instances to games bends the definition. The people that enter an instance are no longer in the same game as the rest of the population. The party that enters an instance are just off in their own little world with a small number of other people.