Originally posted by maji MMO: any game where more than 100 people play in the same world on the same server at the same time.
MMORPG: the same, but with roleplaying aspects. Which means that you have a character you play, with skills you can choose and so on. Example. World of Warcraft.
MOBA: Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. A couple of small teams fight in an arena. Like DOTA 2.
MORPG: Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. A roleplaying game that small groups of people can play at once. Example: Diablo 3. Though Diablo 3 is more accurately a Hack & Slay RPG, since that is the defining part. Or an Action Roleplaying Game.
It not more than 100 people play in same "game" ( i don't think we right to use "world")
The term "massive" mean large number with no certain number (no limit)
Even if there are only 2 players , a game can be called MMO (massive multiplayer online) game as long as it don't limit the number of players possible join the game.
If a game put limit how many players can join in one "game" then it is multiplayers game .
Even if COD limit 110 player per "game" , it still a multiplayer game because it put a limit number how many player possible join in one "game"
I don't think i need to dig more that this , because people here don't ready care what term mean.
But be careful , there will be time when you scream wolf and people though you are liar.
Every online game I have played has a "limit" on the number of players. Some may be as high as 5000, some may be as low as 100. With computers, you can only have a set number, due to technical limitations, usually in multiples of 256 (256/512/1024/etc). There is no online game that offers unlimited players.
And even if there is no hard limit to players per server, there will be a time when the game becomes unplayable due to the server stress and latency. That comes a lot faster in a first person shooter than in a game with auto-targeting and auto-attack.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It not more than 100 people play in same "game" ( i don't think we right to use "world")
The term "massive" mean large number with no certain number (no limit)
Even if there are only 2 players , a game can be called MMO (massive multiplayer online) game as long as it don't limit the number of players possible join the game.
If a game put limit how many players can join in one "game" then it is multiplayers game .
Even if COD limit 110 player per "game" , it still a multiplayer game because it put a limit number how many player possible join in one "game"
I don't think i need to dig more that this , because people here don't ready care what term mean.
But be careful , there will be time when you scream wolf and people though you are liar.
Every online game I have played has a "limit" on the number of players. Some may be as high as 5000, some may be as low as 100. With computers, you can only have a set number, due to technical limitations, usually in multiples of 256 (256/512/1024/etc). There is no online game that offers unlimited players.
Can you tell me the "limit" number of player in design of UO ? (i use UO because it the first called MMO game)
Most case are limit by server , not the game itself , because of that there are time server down because large number of player enter in same time .
Latter they put safe lock to stop player enter when the sever are full , but at the start when the MMO first called , there are no real number put on.
Or the first one who call those game MMO don't know the limit number lol . I think it may be the case
It not more than 100 people play in same "game" ( i don't think we right to use "world")
The term "massive" mean large number with no certain number (no limit)
Even if there are only 2 players , a game can be called MMO (massive multiplayer online) game as long as it don't limit the number of players possible join the game.
If a game put limit how many players can join in one "game" then it is multiplayers game .
Even if COD limit 110 player per "game" , it still a multiplayer game because it put a limit number how many player possible join in one "game"
I don't think i need to dig more that this , because people here don't ready care what term mean.
But be careful , there will be time when you scream wolf and people though you are liar.
Every online game I have played has a "limit" on the number of players. Some may be as high as 5000, some may be as low as 100. With computers, you can only have a set number, due to technical limitations, usually in multiples of 256 (256/512/1024/etc). There is no online game that offers unlimited players.
Can you tell me the "limit" number of player in design of UO ? (i use UO because it the first called MMO game)
Most case are limit by server , not the game itself , because of that there are time server down because large number of player enter in same time .
Latter they put safe lock to stop player enter when the sever are full , but at the start when the MMO first called , there are no real number put on.
Or the first one who call those game MMO don't know the limit number lol . I think it may be the case
I believe it was Richard Garriot that coined the term MMORPG when describing UO , because the serevers he delivered were able to carry 10,000 players at once ...Which was pretty impressive in 1997
An MMO in my terms is a game different from none other but in which you play with a massive pool of people. That's basically it... MMORPG on the other hands is the same as an MMO but has many social/roleplaying aspects to that game. Pretty vague but I guess you get the idea!
This entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.
These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
This entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.
These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
This entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.
These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
They are not objective terms nor self-explanatory. The word "massive" is already relative and subjective. Who decides what is massive and what is not? What constitutes a multiplayer scenario? Is messaging enough? How many and which kind of online elements should a game have to be considered an online game? What if it is only partially online? What if some parts can be accessed offline?
Why this discussion might frustrate someone is because they have many implicit expectations with the term which do not match someone else's implicit expectations. The acronym does a poor job of describing a game/genre explicitly. It is anything but pragmatic or self-explanatory.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal The terms do matter to me. I hate being drawn into an article about a MMORPG and its RTS hero match based game.
If you don't have defined terms then the word become meaningless. When you have specific terms to describe them why not do that way? Not so long ago when someone said and MMORPG I knew exactly what they were talking about. Now eh you have to guess because people are bringing anything under the MMO umbrella, especially fantasy crap.
I am not going to start calling FIFA, NHL, MLB, NBA games NFL games because Madden is the only NFL game and I need stories. This is what's happened with MMOX term.
You know, before gays adopted the word 'gay', it meant happy, cheerful and/or colorful. It is pointless to resist the dynamic nature of language. MMO could mean one thing for you and something else for someone else. Neither one of your definitions can be "objectively right", and it doesn't matter who coined the term first.
The inventor of the GIF-format says it is supposed to be pronounced "JIF" ... What a moron.
Can gay men be generally happy? Does "gay" still mean happy? It just got another meaning tagged onto it, just like other homonyms. I do admit that saying, "I'm a gay gay man." sounds rather silly
My point being, "gay" still has its original meaning. MMORPG/MMO, not so much, except for a few older gamers that try stick to it.
As for GIF, I agree "Graphical Interface Format" has hard "G" in it, not a soft "g."
I'm sure I'll be laughing in both your faces on how the two you pronounce the word: "Gin." He created it, he gets to name it.
Also to keep it on topic. I like order, so:, MOBAS, MMORTS, FPS, etc are not MMORPG's. And I get sick to my stomach every single time I see some troll posting on how LOL is ftp and kicking the crap out of Wow and says the games are the same thing.
I'm sure I'll be laughing in both your faces on how the two you pronounce the word: "Gin." He created it, he gets to name it.
Also to keep it on topic. I like order, so:, MOBAS, MMORTS, FPS, etc are not MMORPG's. And I get sick to my stomach every single time I see some troll posting on how LOL is ftp and kicking the crap out of Wow and says the games are the same thing.
LoL is F2P and kicking the crap out of WoW at the moment, but I haven't seen anyone saying they're the same thing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
It not more than 100 people play in same "game" ( i don't think we right to use "world")
The term "massive" mean large number with no certain number (no limit)
Even if there are only 2 players , a game can be called MMO (massive multiplayer online) game as long as it don't limit the number of players possible join the game.
If a game put limit how many players can join in one "game" then it is multiplayers game .
Even if COD limit 110 player per "game" , it still a multiplayer game because it put a limit number how many player possible join in one "game"
I don't think i need to dig more that this , because people here don't ready care what term mean.
But be careful , there will be time when you scream wolf and people though you are liar.
Every online game I have played has a "limit" on the number of players. Some may be as high as 5000, some may be as low as 100. With computers, you can only have a set number, due to technical limitations, usually in multiples of 256 (256/512/1024/etc). There is no online game that offers unlimited players.
Can you tell me the "limit" number of player in design of UO ? (i use UO because it the first called MMO game)
Most case are limit by server , not the game itself , because of that there are time server down because large number of player enter in same time .
Latter they put safe lock to stop player enter when the sever are full , but at the start when the MMO first called , there are no real number put on.
Or the first one who call those game MMO don't know the limit number lol . I think it may be the case
UO was the game for which the term "MMORPG" was coined. "MMO" came later. The usage also seems to have moved from the specific "this MMORPG" to the general "MMOs".
**
One thing I've noticed is that other than MMORPG being used to describe Ultima Online, every other use of MMORPG or MMO has come without precedent or any particular reason except on the part of the person using the term. Way back in 1997, if the terms were used, it's entirely possible that they were used different ways by different people and each person would have no idea that there were many meanings for the term(s).
The evolution of language has a lot more in common with Darwin's theories than with some sort of human controlled process. It's a collaborative and competitive effort where the end result is usually just the beginning of a new evolution of whatever terms are still being used. With language, whatever is accepted as "true", is true. With that in mind, it is not possible for the terms "MMO" or "MMORPG" to be used incorrectly unless the person reading or hearing the terms doesn't understand what the person saying or writing the terms is talking about.
**
Language changes because it must change in order to work. We change langauge, and language changes us. If this weren't true, we would be unable to communicate with each other. A word we've heard, but did not understand would be forever defined as "I don't know what this means", and would the definition would never change. A word we understood, but understood incorrectly would never be corrected and would always be different from what the majority of the people understood the word to mean. Language changes and because the alternative state, where changing what a word means in our minds and in our cultures is an impossible state of existence.
If "MMO" did mean something specific, even though it's never been defined, there is nothing preventing the definition from changing over time to mean something else. It would be strange if the meaning did not get adjusted based on new information and new uses of the term.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Sukiyaki This entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
Exactly. Labels help funnel things.
Take a person looking for a game to play. They post, "I want to play a game." Now, responses need to figure what "kind" of game they are seeking. - Boardgame? Video game? Card Game? Dice Game? Party Game?
Video game. OK.
- Single Player? Multiplayer? Massively Mulitplayer?
Massively Multiplayer. OK.
- Now, do they want an FPS type game? Maybe an ARPG? Maybe they're seeking an RPG?
Now we see how "labels/genres" factor in. If one person says Diablo III or Legue of Legends is an MMO (or even MMORPG), those games will not fit for what the first poster who asked is looking for.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
Originally posted by SukiyakiThis entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
They are not objective terms nor self-explanatory. The word "massive" is already relative and subjective. Who decides what is massive and what is not? What constitutes a multiplayer scenario? Is messaging enough? How many and which kind of online elements should a game have to be considered an online game? What if it is only partially online? What if some parts can be accessed offline?
Why this discussion might frustrate someone is because they have many implicit expectations with the term which do not match someone else's implicit expectations. The acronym does a poor job of describing a game/genre explicitly. It is anything but pragmatic or self-explanatory.
They are objective meanings, not subjective. You cannot say that LoL or DotA are MMO because they do not allow a lot of players to be played in one single match, for example, 200 vs 200, which means, that those two games are not MMOs, but rather Action Real Time Strategy or, as Riot says, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.
This leads us to the next point, Counter Strike, CoD or BF are not MMOFPS, hell, they are not even labelled as Online shooters, except for CS, which is an Online Shooter.
So, yeah, they are objective and not subjective, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
"Objective" would mean that personal preferences or thoughts don't enter into the discussion of what something means. "Blue" means a specific range of wavelengths of light. It's objective and doesn't depend on what I think "blue" means or how I think blue looks.
"MMO", on the other hand, doesn't have an objective definition. If the definition you are using isn't written down someplace and agreed upon as the definition for the term, then it's not objective. That's why we get so many people trying to prove that a point is wrong because a game "isn't an MMO", based on a definition that nobody agrees on.
We could say that anyone who looks at an undefined term as objective is a fool and will have many foolish arguments about what the terms mean.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
A "massive" number of people are interacting with each other in the lobby, and a "massive" number of people were interacting through the auction house. Both inside and outside of the game players are trading items on a massive level now that there's no auction house.
Is the "massive" aspect of "MMO" only valid if it includes potentially seeing a "massive" number of players inside a game's world?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by SukiyakiThis entire thread is like argueing whether the label "car" or "racing car " is the same or not, because some people call their verhicle a car and other call it a racing car and some dorks started to call their bike a racing car. Or some who consider their vehicle a racing car still call it a car because its shorter. Just because the label is shortened to an acronym in our case, doesnt mean it has no particular meaning. None of that changes the meaning of either of these labels or requires us to reconsider the definition. This doesn't really deserve the question or discussion.These labels MMO are entirely pragmatic and selfexplaining for the simple practical purpose of describing, categorizing or generalizing over what type of game you refer to based on some common characteristics or qualities. The fact they might overlap and in some cases refer to the same thing, or ignorant people mislabel things, doesn't mean we can throw all the consensus and objectivity over board and name anything like we want because of "feelings".
They are not objective terms nor self-explanatory. The word "massive" is already relative and subjective. Who decides what is massive and what is not? What constitutes a multiplayer scenario? Is messaging enough? How many and which kind of online elements should a game have to be considered an online game? What if it is only partially online? What if some parts can be accessed offline?Why this discussion might frustrate someone is because they have many implicit expectations with the term which do not match someone else's implicit expectations. The acronym does a poor job of describing a game/genre explicitly. It is anything but pragmatic or self-explanatory.
They are objective meanings, not subjective. You cannot say that LoL or DotA are MMO because they do not allow a lot of players to be played in one single match, for example, 200 vs 200, which means, that those two games are not MMOs, but rather Action Real Time Strategy or, as Riot says, Multiplayer Online Battle Arena.This leads us to the next point, Counter Strike, CoD or BF are not MMOFPS, hell, they are not even labelled as Online shooters, except for CS, which is an Online Shooter.So, yeah, they are objective and not subjective, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
"Objective" would mean that personal preferences or thoughts don't enter into the discussion of what something means. "Blue" means a specific range of wavelengths of light. It's objective and doesn't depend on what I think "blue" means or how I think blue looks.
"MMO", on the other hand, doesn't have an objective definition. If the definition you are using isn't written down someplace and agreed upon as the definition for the term, then it's not objective. That's why we get so many people trying to prove that a point is wrong because a game "isn't an MMO", based on a definition that nobody agrees on.
We could say that anyone who looks at an undefined term as objective is a fool and will have many foolish arguments about what the terms mean.
An MMO is an MMO, D3 can't be an MMO; WoW is an MMO, EVE is an MMO, EQ is an MMO, Planetside1/2 MMO; CS is an Online Shooter, CF is an Online Shooter; LoL is an MOBA, DotA1/2 ARTS;
The list can go on, but the term will stay absolute for a given game, other can just label that they are MMOs all they want, but the term MMO is definite and it is what it is. I stand by what I said in my previous post.
Except it's not absolute. You're just listing what you think "MMO" means*. If it were an absolute term, there would be no discussion on what is or is not an MMO. "The Industry" wouldn't bother applying the label to things it could not apply to. The definition for the term has never settled.
The term you're thinking of "MMORPG". That actually has a definition, and a real world example upon which it's based. Richard Garriott coined the term "MMORPG" to describe Ultima Online. "MMO" has been slang ever since, and applied unevenly, even wildly.
**
* There's nothing wrong with this, but expecting everyone to get behind what you're saying depends on everyone agreeing with what you are saying.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMO = Massive Multiplayer Online = A game in which you play with hundreds, if not thousands of players at the same time on the same server
RPG = Role Playing Game = A game in which your character strength doesnt depend upon your motoric skills, but on certain values (skills, feats, attributes, whatever) of your character, giving you the ability to play a young hero despite the fact you're actually a 90 year old grandpa.
What about you? If someone is discussing the revenue of games, and uses the term "MMO" to refer to World of Tanks or Diablo III, do you correct them?
lf someone is discussing the revenue of games and that person isn't Jim Sterling, then I rarely pay much attention. I'm a player not an investor and I'm bored of trolls. And who really cares whether a game fits into some narrow definition of what a MMO or MMORPG should be? The really interesting games are often the ones that don't fit neatly into any single category.
Originally posted by Swids2010 Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
A "massive" number of people are interacting with each other in the lobby, and a "massive" number of people were interacting through the auction house. Both inside and outside of the game players are trading items on a massive level now that there's no auction house.Is the "massive" aspect of "MMO" only valid if it includes potentially seeing a "massive" number of players inside a game's world?
While I don't think there is any dispute about the number of players in the lobby or auction house, are those what League of Legends, (and similar games), are all about?
I am sure some players log in simply to chat in the lobby or buy/sell in the auction house, but really, is that what this game is all about? Can you sell in the auction house without playing in matches? (Where does the gear come from?)
I thought the matches was where the game was played. Matches are very limited in the players allowed in. Very limited. Maybe I'm mistaken?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Swids2010 Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
A "massive" number of people are interacting with each other in the lobby, and a "massive" number of people were interacting through the auction house. Both inside and outside of the game players are trading items on a massive level now that there's no auction house.
Is the "massive" aspect of "MMO" only valid if it includes potentially seeing a "massive" number of players inside a game's world?
While I don't think there is any dispute about the number of players in the lobby or auction house, are those what League of Legends, (and similar games), are all about?
I am sure some players log in simply to chat in the lobby or buy/sell in the auction house, but really, is that what this game is all about? Can you sell in the auction house without playing in matches? (Where does the gear come from?)
I thought the matches was where the game was played. Matches are very limited in the players allowed in. Very limited. Maybe I'm mistaken?
Yes, each of the "matches" is the main point of the game, and in each match, players are interacting with a limited number of people. The limit ranges from 4 people total to what, a hundred or so, maybe two hundred? The number of people in each match is not "massive". Not in my opinion. Though, in WoW, I'm not sure I was on screen with a massive number of people at any given time either. If I walked far enough away from a group of players or mobs, I could still see the landscape, but not the players or mobs.
In games like World of Tanks, players aren't interacting with the same people over and over. They are interacting with new people during each "match". In an MMORPG, I'm not interacting with a thousand people all at once, I'm interacting with a few people at a time. The difference appears to be that in one, I'm traveling through a world, and in the other I'm not traveling but "teleporting" to zones where the players are. I can still interact with as many people, all logged into the same server I'm logged into, the difference is the method I use to get to where the people are.
Either "MMO" and "MMORPG" are the same thing, in which case games like WoT or D3 cannot be MMOs because they do not have a persistent and shared world, or "MMO" doesn't mean what "MMORPG" means, in which case WoT and D3 can be an MMO. Having a persistent, shared world is a requirement of MMORPGs, but unless MMO=MMORPG, having a persistent, shared world isn't necessarily a requirement of MMOs. There doesn't appear to be a third option on the table.
**
It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
I suspect the people to whom you are directing this message are very unlikely to internalize it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
And even if there is no hard limit to players per server, there will be a time when the game becomes unplayable due to the server stress and latency. That comes a lot faster in a first person shooter than in a game with auto-targeting and auto-attack.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Can you tell me the "limit" number of player in design of UO ? (i use UO because it the first called MMO game)
Most case are limit by server , not the game itself , because of that there are time server down because large number of player enter in same time .
Latter they put safe lock to stop player enter when the sever are full , but at the start when the MMO first called , there are no real number put on.
Or the first one who call those game MMO don't know the limit number lol . I think it may be the case
I believe it was Richard Garriot that coined the term MMORPG when describing UO , because the serevers he delivered were able to carry 10,000 players at once ...Which was pretty impressive in 1997
pretty clear right here. ^^
With repsect to D3 though...
It is an rpg, but it's not mmo, it's called ARPG - action role playing game - which makes a lot of sense.
An MMO in my terms is a game different from none other but in which you play with a massive pool of people. That's basically it... MMORPG on the other hands is the same as an MMO but has many social/roleplaying aspects to that game. Pretty vague but I guess you get the idea!
I think it about "car" or "bus" lol .
wow and I thought this was simple logic.
PS, did you know you are only 5 post away from 666?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I am proud of you
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
They are not objective terms nor self-explanatory. The word "massive" is already relative and subjective. Who decides what is massive and what is not? What constitutes a multiplayer scenario? Is messaging enough? How many and which kind of online elements should a game have to be considered an online game? What if it is only partially online? What if some parts can be accessed offline?
Why this discussion might frustrate someone is because they have many implicit expectations with the term which do not match someone else's implicit expectations. The acronym does a poor job of describing a game/genre explicitly. It is anything but pragmatic or self-explanatory.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
what does logic have to do with categorization and convenient labeling?
I'm sure I'll be laughing in both your faces on how the two you pronounce the word: "Gin." He created it, he gets to name it.
Also to keep it on topic. I like order, so:, MOBAS, MMORTS, FPS, etc are not MMORPG's. And I get sick to my stomach every single time I see some troll posting on how LOL is ftp and kicking the crap out of Wow and says the games are the same thing.
LoL is F2P and kicking the crap out of WoW at the moment, but I haven't seen anyone saying they're the same thing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
UO was the game for which the term "MMORPG" was coined. "MMO" came later. The usage also seems to have moved from the specific "this MMORPG" to the general "MMOs".
**
One thing I've noticed is that other than MMORPG being used to describe Ultima Online, every other use of MMORPG or MMO has come without precedent or any particular reason except on the part of the person using the term. Way back in 1997, if the terms were used, it's entirely possible that they were used different ways by different people and each person would have no idea that there were many meanings for the term(s).
The evolution of language has a lot more in common with Darwin's theories than with some sort of human controlled process. It's a collaborative and competitive effort where the end result is usually just the beginning of a new evolution of whatever terms are still being used. With language, whatever is accepted as "true", is true. With that in mind, it is not possible for the terms "MMO" or "MMORPG" to be used incorrectly unless the person reading or hearing the terms doesn't understand what the person saying or writing the terms is talking about.
**
Language changes because it must change in order to work. We change langauge, and language changes us. If this weren't true, we would be unable to communicate with each other. A word we've heard, but did not understand would be forever defined as "I don't know what this means", and would the definition would never change. A word we understood, but understood incorrectly would never be corrected and would always be different from what the majority of the people understood the word to mean. Language changes and because the alternative state, where changing what a word means in our minds and in our cultures is an impossible state of existence.
If "MMO" did mean something specific, even though it's never been defined, there is nothing preventing the definition from changing over time to mean something else. It would be strange if the meaning did not get adjusted based on new information and new uses of the term.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Take a person looking for a game to play. They post, "I want to play a game."
Now, responses need to figure what "kind" of game they are seeking.
- Boardgame? Video game? Card Game? Dice Game? Party Game?
Video game. OK.
- Single Player? Multiplayer? Massively Mulitplayer?
Massively Multiplayer. OK.
- Now, do they want an FPS type game? Maybe an ARPG? Maybe they're seeking an RPG?
Now we see how "labels/genres" factor in. If one person says Diablo III or Legue of Legends is an MMO (or even MMORPG), those games will not fit for what the first poster who asked is looking for.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Diablo 3 you can only play with 3 or 4 other players cant you been a while but i didn't think it was more than that yes that is Multiplayer but i wouldn't call it massive same with call of duty 8vs 8 is not massive the term MMO is used to liberally by game developers at the moment a hand full of players playing together does not make it massive.
"Objective" would mean that personal preferences or thoughts don't enter into the discussion of what something means. "Blue" means a specific range of wavelengths of light. It's objective and doesn't depend on what I think "blue" means or how I think blue looks.
"MMO", on the other hand, doesn't have an objective definition. If the definition you are using isn't written down someplace and agreed upon as the definition for the term, then it's not objective. That's why we get so many people trying to prove that a point is wrong because a game "isn't an MMO", based on a definition that nobody agrees on.
We could say that anyone who looks at an undefined term as objective is a fool and will have many foolish arguments about what the terms mean.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
A "massive" number of people are interacting with each other in the lobby, and a "massive" number of people were interacting through the auction house. Both inside and outside of the game players are trading items on a massive level now that there's no auction house.
Is the "massive" aspect of "MMO" only valid if it includes potentially seeing a "massive" number of players inside a game's world?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Except it's not absolute. You're just listing what you think "MMO" means*. If it were an absolute term, there would be no discussion on what is or is not an MMO. "The Industry" wouldn't bother applying the label to things it could not apply to. The definition for the term has never settled.
The term you're thinking of "MMORPG". That actually has a definition, and a real world example upon which it's based. Richard Garriott coined the term "MMORPG" to describe Ultima Online. "MMO" has been slang ever since, and applied unevenly, even wildly.
**
* There's nothing wrong with this, but expecting everyone to get behind what you're saying depends on everyone agreeing with what you are saying.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMO = Massive Multiplayer Online = A game in which you play with hundreds, if not thousands of players at the same time on the same server
RPG = Role Playing Game = A game in which your character strength doesnt depend upon your motoric skills, but on certain values (skills, feats, attributes, whatever) of your character, giving you the ability to play a young hero despite the fact you're actually a 90 year old grandpa.
MMORPG = a game that is both a MMO and a RPG.
lf someone is discussing the revenue of games and that person isn't Jim Sterling, then I rarely pay much attention. I'm a player not an investor and I'm bored of trolls. And who really cares whether a game fits into some narrow definition of what a MMO or MMORPG should be? The really interesting games are often the ones that don't fit neatly into any single category.
I am sure some players log in simply to chat in the lobby or buy/sell in the auction house, but really, is that what this game is all about? Can you sell in the auction house without playing in matches? (Where does the gear come from?)
I thought the matches was where the game was played. Matches are very limited in the players allowed in. Very limited. Maybe I'm mistaken?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Yes, each of the "matches" is the main point of the game, and in each match, players are interacting with a limited number of people. The limit ranges from 4 people total to what, a hundred or so, maybe two hundred? The number of people in each match is not "massive". Not in my opinion. Though, in WoW, I'm not sure I was on screen with a massive number of people at any given time either. If I walked far enough away from a group of players or mobs, I could still see the landscape, but not the players or mobs.
In games like World of Tanks, players aren't interacting with the same people over and over. They are interacting with new people during each "match". In an MMORPG, I'm not interacting with a thousand people all at once, I'm interacting with a few people at a time. The difference appears to be that in one, I'm traveling through a world, and in the other I'm not traveling but "teleporting" to zones where the players are. I can still interact with as many people, all logged into the same server I'm logged into, the difference is the method I use to get to where the people are.
Either "MMO" and "MMORPG" are the same thing, in which case games like WoT or D3 cannot be MMOs because they do not have a persistent and shared world, or "MMO" doesn't mean what "MMORPG" means, in which case WoT and D3 can be an MMO. Having a persistent, shared world is a requirement of MMORPGs, but unless MMO=MMORPG, having a persistent, shared world isn't necessarily a requirement of MMOs. There doesn't appear to be a third option on the table.
**
It should be noted that regardless of the results of the poll, there does not seem to be a consensus on what "MMO" or "MMOG" means. Searching the internet, some games, like World of Tanks are listed as MMOgs, while others, like Diablo 3 are not. There doesn't seem to be a lot of different between WoT and D3 in terms of how players get from match to match so it's hard to say what distinctions are being made between the games. It seems to come down to a subjective opinion. So everyone try to keep that in mind. While we're discussing this, there is no objective evidence "in the world" to really backup what we're discussing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I suspect the people to whom you are directing this message are very unlikely to internalize it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky