Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
"Massively Multiplayer" Designation: Game Design or Player Population?
fat_taddler
Member Posts: 286
What actually defines a game as "Massively Multiplayer", is it based on game mechanics or is it related to player population (curent or intended)?
If the answer is the latter, is there a point during a game's inception or demise where it wouldn't be considered MM based on active players?
Comments
In my opinion, Massively Muliplayer is defined by the game mechanics, current population is irrelevant.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
I think it's based on both, as in the number of a people that a game can support logging in simultaneously and have the ability to interact with in some way.
The number is vague and just more than a multiplayer can handle, the interaction is vague as well (grouping/auction/chatting...).
The actual population of the game is not a factor.
"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
A city mass-transit bus is built to seat 40 people, if the bus is empty it's still a bus.
^
Orignally? Having 50 players running around on the same game screen was pretty amazing.
16 years later, well...we probably lean a bit toward the game design (server architecture) side a bit more?
And no, it don't stop being massive if most of those players are logged out. Unless it stops operating entirely, anyway.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well that could mean 2 or 3 things I guess.
1. If multiplayer games can now handle the same numbers as original MMO's than the two genres are and should blur. This is actually happening.
2. If multiplayer games can now handle the same numbers as original MMO's than current MMO's should push the envelope further to have evern more simulataneous players logging in.
3. Perhaps new terms need to be coined.
Game mechanics and capacity.
I view it as "a connected multiplayer world with capacity of 500+ player characters in the same world at the same time".
By connected, I judge this as "any player character can walk or travel to any other player character, in any location in the world, at any time".
In fairness plenty of MMOs don't adhere strictly to this, but the general idea should fit the game under most circumstances.
Or we can stop spending so many freaking hours trying to define acronyms. :shrug:
I don't remember massive being adverb-fied (-ly) added, originally. Was that the subject of endless pedantry, too?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Possibly however unless there is some general agreement on words, including acronyms, communication is difficult.
Yes we know that definiations are a huge part of these boards, but still there is some agreement among many people as to what constitutes an MMO.
Barrikor said it best:
"A city mass-transit bus is built to seat 40 people, if the bus is empty it's still a bus."
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
On this site? What the owners want to cover.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Agreed, here though, certain people who drive small cars, but think buses are cool, want everyone to call their car a bus and to limit the number of seats on the bus from 40 to 4.
Just use the industry categorization. Go to IGN, or gamerankings .. and games are listed by category.
To me, it is just silly debate endless for a definition.
Or better yet, discuss specific games. If i say "wow, LOTRO, and games have similar features ...." .. that would be clear what i mean, right?
To me, "massively multiplayer" still goes back to the notion of "more than just a multiplayer lan game", that is to say: enough users connecting at all hours of the day and night that the game never turns off.
...then you'd be wrong because that's not what the letters stand for.
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
It should be related to a large group of players that can access the same space (zone). I would not classivy an ARPG, MOBA, Lobby Shooter or games with only persistent cities as MMORPG's.
HOWEVER - I agree to have them listed here since these types of games are of greater interest to MMO players since they are still online and involve playing with others. A tomato technically isn't a vegetable, but it's sold in the vegetable section. The asparagus isn't all "GTFO 'mater you don't belong here".
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
if you click on that link to the left of the forum that says "WWII Online", youll understand what it means to be an mmo. WWII Online is a single-instance persistant server 350,000 square km in size with a 10,000 player capacity @ 196 viewable. WWII Online was one of the first mmo's made along with Everquest and Ultima Online 12 years ago.
I view it as both.
When I think of what a MMO means to me, it means sandbox style games where crafting/economy, pvp, and pve are all meshed together and not separated out or dumbed down.
Massively Multiplayer for me is having a community and guild that stays together in the same game for years. A game where guildies help gather resources for our crafters and in turn they make our armor/weapons/etc for us and we strategize a plan to go out pvping in the open world and look for fights. Queuing up for an instanced pvp map takes all excitement away. Getting to know players from opposite factions by name and guild tag and having rivalry is interesting and sometimes exciting. Randomly being queued up in an instanced pvp map and seeing another list of random players who you never heard of and likely will never remember is not exciting.
For me, game design defines MMO. Player population is needed, but if the game design is good the population will be enough to where you will always run into people in the game world.
Waiting on: The Repopulation
The question is WHY do YOU need new terms? Unless you are in the industry making these games, it really is what? Endless discussion because of boredom?
Everything is fine.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
people are so serious about those terminology like they actually mean something.
There are plenty of "sandboxer" who claim Wow isn't an mmorpg because it is not "world" focusing. Mainly because they are upset no developer will spend big bucks developing sandbox games.
I mean, those terminology is meanless. Just like a meanless argument the definition of gay means happy.
Rubbish, there are not plenty of Sandbox fans who claim WoW is not an MMORPG, can you provide examples?
No really? Just find a thread about mmorpg with instance and see how people will tell you those are not mmorpg.
Yeah, that's not something you really see much of on these forums. I have however read posts that claim that WOW is a sandbox on several occassions.
"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