They already have forums for D3 and LoL here so... just sayin'!...
Right, but is this site officially classifying those games as MMOs? If I'm not mistaken, one of those games (maybe both) had to be voted on before mmorpg.com would even open those forums up. They are very popular video games that MMO players happen to have an interest in. That's it. If this site wants to start following the bizarre "lump 'em all in the mmo basket" mentality, I'll be joining Madazz on his way out.
Some MMA sites cover big Boxing events as MMA fans tend to have an interest in other combat sports. This absolutely does not magically transform Boxing into MMA.
This thread really is lacking in the logic department, and it's just plain odd.
I wasn't actually serious about them BEING MMOs lol. Just pointing out that they are on this site... anywho, you won't find me disagreeing with you guys on this one.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
Originally posted by AxxarInteresting how lots of classic multiplayer games I played in the day have now retroactively become MMOs.
That is not necessarily a bad thing.
Yes it is. Because it is the butchering of the english language. MMO has a defined and clear meaning. People are trying to destroy that on some sort of weird holy crusade. Its VERY weird.Also, if MMORPG starts calling Diablo 3, LoL or DOTA 2 an MMO. I will NEVER come here again.
You're thinking of languages that aren't English. The English language does not have a governing body like other languages do so it doesn't have a clearly defined set of rules or defined words. Webster's doesn't add words to the English dictionary because they think the words are proper, they add words because people are using them. That's why English is the most commonly spoken non-native language. It can and does change based on how people are using it. The language can't be butchered. That's just how it works. ** edit ** Also, can I have your stuff?
You don't say "Green Car" when you mean "Blue Car", as "Green" is the defined attribute of the "Car". Therefore how are you supposed to point out a Blue Car to someone if you are calling it Green? So why does "Massive" not mean anything when describing "Multiplayer". And don't try and tell me that "Multiplayer" isn't defined as people playing the game TOGETHER. So, as the rule works, when defining "Multiplayer" with "Massive" you have a game where it is no longer just "people playing a game together", it is now "a massive amount of people playing a game together".
The english language does not have a governing body, true... but scholars have applied some rules to it. The argument here is about common sense. We all know the way it works, so why are people acting like they don't?
And why is that no one is trying to call LORD (Legend of the red dragon) an MMO? Its a BBS game, and qualifies as an MMO more than D3. As does Battlefield 3... You guys have no logic AT ALL. You just choose a random game and say its an MMO.
Answer me these questions:
How is D3/LoL an MMO but Battlefiend 3 not?
How is D3/LoL an MMO but LORD not?
How is Team Fortress not an MMO?
How is Freecell online not an MMO?
How is Orcs Must Die 2 not an MMO?
How is PayDay not an MMO?
If you guys know what an MMO is, tell me exactly how those aren't MMO's under your definition.
You're mixing your concrete things up with your abstract ideas. A green car will always be a green car, no matter how you define it or what you call it. "MMO" on the other hand, is an abstract idea. It's nothing but a definition. If you change the definition, you change the thing. That is how human language works.
There aren't any rules for changing the definition of an abstract idea. It just happens over time. There's a branch of study dedicated to this called Etymology. If languages didn't change and the definitions didn't change, then Etymology wouldn't exist. Our culture probably wouldn't exist either, but that's a whole different discussion. It's just how languages work and English is more prone to change than other languages.
For what it's worth, neither definition depends on having a certain number of players. Games with 64 players online at the same time can be MMOs just as games with thousands of players online at the same time. This is true for both the legacy and new definitions of the term. It's all about shared virtual worlds and the way the game has persistence. It's the player interactions that are massive, not the number of players.
If you'll make the effort to look back through some posts, you'll see that I've provided the legacy and the new definitions, and then applied them both, showing how some games are not MMOs by the legacy definition, and how those same games are MMOs according to the new definition being used by the industry and by groups that study the industry. There is a logic to it, you're just not following it.
** edit ** Depending on where you look, and who was the last person who edited the entry, MMO requires "many" players or at least "hundreds" of players in a virtual world. Like many things, there is not a consensus on this.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by madazz The words are crystal clear.
Obviously not .. otherwise how would this thread have so many posts argument from all angles?
Because people like to argue and win arguments. There is no better way to get 100 shades of gray then to come here and argue the simplist of subjects. I, of course, am not above this.
This thread imparticular is so easily answered it hurts the head. That doesn't mean other spinoffs haven't caused some great discussion even if it's just for the sake of TvT (Theory vs. Theory).
Originally posted by Axxar Interesting how lots of classic multiplayer games I played in the day have now retroactively become MMOs.
yup.
Quake 1 is now considered the first MMO, because many thousands of people played it online at the same time. we'll just overlook the fact that they were all segregated by 16 player instances (servers), cuz that little distinction is now unimportant as narius says.
hahaha, the lack of perspective/context on the modern usage of the term is pretty hilarious
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define:
Massive = Network
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked)
Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years:
Massive = Large Quantity or Size
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together
Online = Online
It's Massively, not Massive. The word describes the degree of multiplayer, not the world, proximity, connection type or anything else. It seems your main issue is what constitutes 'together' and I get the impression your assumption is that it needs to be in a 2D or 3D world, correct?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define:
Massive = Network
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked)
Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years:
Massive = Large Quantity or Size
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together
Online = Online
It's Massively, not Massive. The word describes the degree of multiplayer, not the world, proximity, connection type or anything else. It seems your main issue is what constitutes 'together' and I get the impression your assumption is that it needs to be in a 2D or 3D world, correct?
Your assumption as to what my assumption is, is incorrect. Are you resurrecting this just to pick a fight?
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define:
Massive = Network
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked)
Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years:
Massive = Large Quantity or Size
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together
Online = Online
It's Massively, not Massive. The word describes the degree of multiplayer, not the world, proximity, connection type or anything else. It seems your main issue is what constitutes 'together' and I get the impression your assumption is that it needs to be in a 2D or 3D world, correct?
Your assumption as to what my assumption is, is incorrect. Are you resurrecting this just to pick a fight?
I was asking if that was your assumption, not telling you it was. Also, the thread had two replies sitting on the top of Recent Posts when I clicked it, so I didn't know it was a necro'd thread. My bad.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Quirhid Its not a necro thread when its not even two weeks old.
I don't know... rigor mortis has definitely started to set in.
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
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.
Well the answer to that highlighted sentence is - in LoL if I play a 5v5 match, the main part of the game, my actions directly affect 9 people. 4 on my team and 5 on the other. If I play the main part of , for instance GW2, most of the the time my activity affects practically no one else as the game uses a personal story that only you run and quests that are soloable. By your indicator LoL has more MMO to it than GW2. In reality Massively Multiplayer Online is just that. Both games have multiplayer online followings and thousands upon thousands playing at any given time. LoL's matches can be viewed as instanced runs in the same way GW2 and others do dungeons and the way GW1 was entirely designed.
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define:
Massive = Network
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked)
Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years:
Massive = Large Quantity or Size
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together
Online = Online
It's Massively, not Massive. The word describes the degree of multiplayer, not the world, proximity, connection type or anything else. It seems your main issue is what constitutes 'together' and I get the impression your assumption is that it needs to be in a 2D or 3D world, correct?
Your assumption as to what my assumption is, is incorrect. Are you resurrecting this just to pick a fight?
I was asking if that was your assumption, not telling you it was. Also, the thread had two replies sitting on the top of Recent Posts when I clicked it, so I didn't know it was a necro'd thread. My bad.
No, my bad. Thread isnt old enough to be necrod. I am just tired and unwilling to talk about this topic anymore lol! You guys can continue though.
Since nobody can agree what constitutes an MMORPG. Is there any consensus on what games are not considered MMORPG's?
Pac-Man? You can play Pac-Man online now. A lot of other people are playing it too so I guess it's massive. I get to play the role of Pac-Man so you can call it a role playing game.
What about Asteriods? Pong? Solitaire?
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
Since nobody can agree what constitutes an MMORPG. Is there any consensus on what games are not considered MMORPG's?
Pac-Man? You can play Pac-Man online now. A lot of other people are playing it too so I guess it's massive. I get to play the role of Pac-Man so you can call it a role playing game.
What about Asteriods? Pong? Solitaire?
Any game that limits the number of people you can interact with to about 64 people at a time.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Since nobody can agree what constitutes an MMORPG. Is there any consensus on what games are not considered MMORPG's?
Pac-Man? You can play Pac-Man online now. A lot of other people are playing it too so I guess it's massive. I get to play the role of Pac-Man so you can call it a role playing game.
What about Asteriods? Pong? Solitaire?
Any game that limits the number of people you can interact with to about 64 people at a time.
I like the number 64. I've always been partial to the perfect squares. Oh and irrational constants (who doesn't love e).
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
Since nobody can agree what constitutes an MMORPG. Is there any consensus on what games are not considered MMORPG's?
Pac-Man? You can play Pac-Man online now. A lot of other people are playing it too so I guess it's massive. I get to play the role of Pac-Man so you can call it a role playing game.
What about Asteriods? Pong? Solitaire?
Any game that limits the number of people you can interact with to about 64 people at a time.
I like the number 64. I've always been partial to the perfect squares. Oh and irrational constants (who doesn't love e).
Admittedly I'm not postive about 64, thats just the number I keep hearing that multiplayer formats are supported to.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The MMO part of MMORPG was coined to distinguish the multiplayer of these games from that of ordinary multiplayer games of the time. With that in mind it should be fairly easy to eliminate certain game types from the MMO umbrella by simply seeing if something similar existed back when the MMO term was first established (when they were NOT considered MMOs).
So take a look at what other games existed when UO and EQ1 were around, if they were not MMOs then their modern evolutions certainly aren't MMOs now.
Comments
The weird version of MMO that a few users are trying to define:
Massive = Network
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game (doesn't have to be together, as long as they are networked)
Online = Online
The actual version of MMO that already exists and has for many years:
Massive = Large Quantity or Size
Multiplayer = Multiple people playing a game together
Online = Online
And anyone who played a video game or board game growing up knows that multiplayer means we played together at the same time.
Holy CRAP. I just solved it... your games should be called NOG and ours should be called MMO!
You guys can go play your Networked Online Games (NOG) and we will stay back and enjoy our MMO's thank you very much
This way, your broad term can cover EVERY game that is networked online! SWEET! Solved. Nogheads
I wasn't actually serious about them BEING MMOs lol. Just pointing out that they are on this site... anywho, you won't find me disagreeing with you guys on this one.
Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.
You're mixing your concrete things up with your abstract ideas. A green car will always be a green car, no matter how you define it or what you call it. "MMO" on the other hand, is an abstract idea. It's nothing but a definition. If you change the definition, you change the thing. That is how human language works.
There aren't any rules for changing the definition of an abstract idea. It just happens over time. There's a branch of study dedicated to this called Etymology. If languages didn't change and the definitions didn't change, then Etymology wouldn't exist. Our culture probably wouldn't exist either, but that's a whole different discussion. It's just how languages work and English is more prone to change than other languages.
For what it's worth, neither definition depends on having a certain number of players. Games with 64 players online at the same time can be MMOs just as games with thousands of players online at the same time. This is true for both the legacy and new definitions of the term. It's all about shared virtual worlds and the way the game has persistence. It's the player interactions that are massive, not the number of players.
If you'll make the effort to look back through some posts, you'll see that I've provided the legacy and the new definitions, and then applied them both, showing how some games are not MMOs by the legacy definition, and how those same games are MMOs according to the new definition being used by the industry and by groups that study the industry. There is a logic to it, you're just not following it.
** edit **
Depending on where you look, and who was the last person who edited the entry, MMO requires "many" players or at least "hundreds" of players in a virtual world. Like many things, there is not a consensus on this.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Obviously not .. otherwise how would this thread have so many posts argument from all angles?
Because people like to argue and win arguments. There is no better way to get 100 shades of gray then to come here and argue the simplist of subjects. I, of course, am not above this.
This thread imparticular is so easily answered it hurts the head. That doesn't mean other spinoffs haven't caused some great discussion even if it's just for the sake of TvT (Theory vs. Theory).
yup.
Quake 1 is now considered the first MMO, because many thousands of people played it online at the same time. we'll just overlook the fact that they were all segregated by 16 player instances (servers), cuz that little distinction is now unimportant as narius says.
hahaha, the lack of perspective/context on the modern usage of the term is pretty hilarious
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
well according to narius, logic and reason should have nothing to do with our language. 8)
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
It's Massively, not Massive. The word describes the degree of multiplayer, not the world, proximity, connection type or anything else. It seems your main issue is what constitutes 'together' and I get the impression your assumption is that it needs to be in a 2D or 3D world, correct?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Your assumption as to what my assumption is, is incorrect. Are you resurrecting this just to pick a fight?
I was asking if that was your assumption, not telling you it was. Also, the thread had two replies sitting on the top of Recent Posts when I clicked it, so I didn't know it was a necro'd thread. My bad.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I don't know... rigor mortis has definitely started to set in.
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 the answer to that highlighted sentence is - in LoL if I play a 5v5 match, the main part of the game, my actions directly affect 9 people. 4 on my team and 5 on the other. If I play the main part of , for instance GW2, most of the the time my activity affects practically no one else as the game uses a personal story that only you run and quests that are soloable. By your indicator LoL has more MMO to it than GW2. In reality Massively Multiplayer Online is just that. Both games have multiplayer online followings and thousands upon thousands playing at any given time. LoL's matches can be viewed as instanced runs in the same way GW2 and others do dungeons and the way GW1 was entirely designed.
lol i keep thinking the same. i keep wondering how Yahoo! Chess is now an mmo.
all because some no-name marketing company that pops out of no where starts calling themselves "the industry."
No, my bad. Thread isnt old enough to be necrod. I am just tired and unwilling to talk about this topic anymore lol! You guys can continue though.
Since nobody can agree what constitutes an MMORPG. Is there any consensus on what games are not considered MMORPG's?
Pac-Man? You can play Pac-Man online now. A lot of other people are playing it too so I guess it's massive. I get to play the role of Pac-Man so you can call it a role playing game.
What about Asteriods? Pong? Solitaire?
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
Any game that limits the number of people you can interact with to about 64 people at a time.
I like the number 64. I've always been partial to the perfect squares. Oh and irrational constants (who doesn't love e).
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
Admittedly I'm not postive about 64, thats just the number I keep hearing that multiplayer formats are supported to.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The MMO part of MMORPG was coined to distinguish the multiplayer of these games from that of ordinary multiplayer games of the time. With that in mind it should be fairly easy to eliminate certain game types from the MMO umbrella by simply seeing if something similar existed back when the MMO term was first established (when they were NOT considered MMOs).
So take a look at what other games existed when UO and EQ1 were around, if they were not MMOs then their modern evolutions certainly aren't MMOs now.
Same thing.
The set of MMOs included in the definition is bigger.