Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvE groups and PvP are not the only massive multiplayer interaction
nariusseldon
Member EpicPosts: 27,775
We should not be that narrow minded and limit massive multiplayer interaction to pve grouping, or pvp battles.
There are lots of other ways players can interact and impact each other.
One very prominent example is trading. If you can trade with millions of others in a AH, or any other trading mechanism, how is that not massive, not multiplayer, and not interactive?
Another example is just inspection (for seeing items, for status, for whatever reasons). If you can LOOK AT thousands of other players and what they wear, how is that not massive? How is that not multiplayer? In fact, that is a big part of the now defunct SIMS online.
And a MMO does not need massively multiplayer in all aspect of its gameplay. What if it is massively multiplayer in trading, but support a lot of solo-ing in combat? In fact, that is how a lot of current MMO operates. That is the point. Players cannot get a solo-combat experience, combined with a massively trading experience, in a single player game, can they?
Comments
One such example is ATiTD. There is no pvp and no real pve, the only pve there is is gathering materials.
But there is lots of trading and it is considered an MMO.
edit - I guess the mobs to skin and such are pve as well.
Many people here have been saying that mmorpg's are too combat focused (myself included). Whenever the subjects of trading, housing, crafting, exploration, inventing or politics come up it generates very little interest.
For example, trading is a very large and profitable profession in Eve, yet many players say it's just spreadsheets in space.
For time being, what you're asking for is wishful thinking.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Well, i am not asking for anything .. just pointing out that other interactions should be considered.
And who says i *like* more interaction? What i like depends on the specific kind of interactions. I don't like others killstealing my mobsi n a dungeon .. so that is NOT interactions i want. However, i do like big pvp battles (like PS2). So all depends on the setting, content, and gameplay elements.
I also want to point out that a game with solo-combat, and then massive trading should also be considered a MMO .. because there is a massive interaction aspect.
The point, a game does not have to be one or the other. It does not have to be either massive interaction in every aspect, or none at all.
It can be solo-able in some aspects, and massively interactive in others.
Guild management and participation is another aspect of multiplayer interaction. For me, it is one of the most significant because it represents cooperative gameplay outside of combat.
eBay is an MMO .. just that the primary objective is not fun .. but commerce. And i have no doubt some are also having fun on ebay too.
If you put a production simulation (i.e. crafting) with virtual items behind ebay and make it a game ... it is certainly a MMO.
I completely agree.. ppl say that combat has taken away from socializing.. but that is not true.. all socialization doesn't have to be vocal... and it doesn't have to be centered around combat...
at least somebody "gets it"
You mean Diablo 3?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for innovation in a triple-A MMO. They're too expensive to make, so no one wants to take any chances.
Diablo 3, WOT, and other games. In fact, even a laddle, or a ranking can be massively interactive.
And this thread is not about innovation, but the different kind of interactions.And you are certainly right that tripple A MMORPG is expensive. But perhaps the innovation can come in other types of online games. And lastly, innovation is not the only thing that makes a game fun.
Dead Space 2 is fun. Bioshock 2 is fun .. and there are very little innovation in those games.
it would be nice if you actually pointed out specific ppl.. instead of making an all-inclusive statement.
TSO was the first MMO I ever played. While there wasn't PvE or PvP, there was more to interacting than just viewing people. Although "grouping" would not follow your typical MMO, it was still a big part of the game. More housemates meant more people to keep the lot open and more people to help with taking care of guests. More people doing the same thing on the same lot meant skilling faster or getting more simoleons. I remember the first Christmas playing that we were making toys as Santa's workshop as we carved gnomes and saying stuff in chat regularly to try to get other players on the stations so we'd have enough people to max out simoleons made by selling the gnomes. Having others on the lot also meant keeping the social needs bar full. During beta and just after release, there were so many players and lots that it didn't take long to go from the top of the list to the bottom if housemates weren't online to keep a house open the majority of the day (and at that point there were more lots open than would be obvious, other than dot color, from map view which meant if a house wasn't at the top of the list for its category, it was very difficult to get guests again, short of hoping for enough "regulars).
As for what else goes into "defining" what puts a game into the genre of MMO, while I'll agree that it can be more than just grouping for PvE or PvP ( and not all PvP games fall into MMO although there may be very similar to instanced PvP in some MMOs), it also takes more than just being able to buy or get items from other players. If the definition were as simple as this, then any The Sims game out there would be a MMO since players can go online and get items created by other players along with uploading pictures, stoylines, and sims from a game. When talking about what it takes to qualify as MMO, there needs to be an awareness that there IS more than one category and last three letters of the category that is being discussed (rpg, fps...). As far as twitter and facebook, those fall more into the category of chatrooms. Yes, facebook has games but most of those I would not consider MMO as, while there is cooperative or competitive parts to the games, I do not interact with the other person in game while playing, although their "avatar" may be present.
MMO--- is one genre where I see people trying to change the definition of the genre or getting upset when others give a definition of the genre. FPS is not my favorite game genre but I will play some because the stoyline or some other part of the game looks interesting. I could say "I wish they would make a [ insert game genre] out of [ insert IP ]." or "Wouldn't [ insert IP ] be better/great as [ insert genre ]?" Sometimes creators of games will even change genre used on a particular IP. .... BUT that is different from going around saying that the genre of FPS should be more like some other genre or trying to change the definition of FPS to fit my gaming preferences. If I buy a game that is advertised as an fps, I know what that means, and, while I may or may not end up liking the game, I have no right to complain when it plays like an fps. If I could succeed in changing the definition of fps, I'm sure that those for whom fps is a favorite genre would be complaining and rightfully so....which is one reason I think some people on these forums have a response of "have your games, enjoy them, but call them something else, because they don't fit the given definition of MMO ... and if you choose to play an MMO, don't be complaining about the very features that make it an MMO."
I'm guessing that he means that some people are against anything being in the game other than pvp and quests (such as the crafting and social parts of the game) but then turn around and say that it's the crafting and social part that should make it an MMO while everything pve is left as solo content.
Or as I read on the SWG forums around the switch to NGE, "I shouldn't need other people for anything but pvping." (my paraphrase as that has been many years ago).
You miss the AH trading aspect. I see nothing wrong if MMO focus on solo or small group co-op dungeons, and only do massive interactions in AH.
BTW, craftingi s hard to made interactive. In fact, most crafting are not ... the interactions are in the trade.
A tale in the desert is an MMO because a massive amount of people and coexist in the EXACT same game world at the same time. The OP is stating that an AH from Diablo is also an MMO. BIG BIG BIG BIG difference my friend.
Wait a second... it seems your logic processor is turned off.... How is purchasing from a screen, and not socializing or seeing anyone socializing? You are seriously going to tell me that looking at an AH screen is socializing....
If you are being sarcastic, sorry, I just didn't get it.
I just don't see how playing with 1-4 people, but having a faceless AH is "socializing".
Just to be clear, I am all for a game that doesn't need PvE or PvP. But a faceless AH is not an MMO. A 4 player game does not become an MMO.
I guess Team Fortress 2 is now an MMO as you can trade in that.
you must be talking to op... but either way... i don't think his examples take away from the main point.. the point is.. that the other aspects of an mmo are meant for socializing.. you gathrer crafing materials.. you make trades.. you build guilds/decorate guilds.. those things are what makes a game social.. grouping together even if you don't do much talking is still socializing..
Pffff
http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Blast_Furnace
Or just for tokens and this time with more people
http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Trouble_Brewing
And in case its not enough for you, how about
GROUP RESOURCE GATHERING
http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Fishing_Trawler
Flame on!
I agree. Innovation isn't necessary for a game to be fun. But this genre is suffering from a serious case of stagnation. Ladders etc. aren't going to save it though -- every game with an online mode does those things, but they're not MMOs. This is one of my longstanding beefs with the state of MMOs: they expect players to pay (via subs or otherwise) for features that are standard in other types of games.
I don't think the problem is lack of interactivity though. It's lack of persistance. In an MMO, it's not enough to include things like trade and leader boards. They have to be consequential to the broader game. Without persistance, the genre will be dead within ten years. The trick is pulling this off in a way that's meaningful, while still being at least moderately accessible.
That'll take innovation, if it can be done at all.
Does TF2 have a AH and you can trade with MASSIVE number of people by seeing their auctions?
If so, that is massively interactive, is it? So what if it is a MMOFPS .. will that make you sad/angry in any way?