Why are all these new games coming out (many are cloning ARK's sandbox theme, others are unique. But WHY are they being labeled MMO/MMORPGs? If a server can only hold 20-180 people, it is NOT an MMO.
There are some benefits (no gold farmers) but it splits the community up into hundreds of servers, and only if you have friends to play with or find friends in game to group up with then its a 1 vs 19-179 multiplayer game, not an MMO.
Any thoughts
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How is that even considered massive at that point?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Sadly these days a game with 64 player limit with a server lobby are also a MMO, wut?
If this trend continue then the label multiplay wont exist, everything are a MMO.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Shroud of the Avatar calls itself a MMO.
Parties can't be more than eight players in size; and combat goes all wonky with only a dozen players in a scene, and with twenty players in a scene just standing around, crafting or emoting screens lock up completely; it's a shitshow.
Here's what Portalarium's Community Manager Berek has to say about it:
" For marketing, sometimes its best to go with shorter statements... "MMO" of course doesn't entirely describe our game, but sometimes it's the word of choice to use in short advertisements and the like. Don't look into it too much when we use it for these purposes. The design of the game itself and the direction of its development will be your statement of what the game is about, not some word on a piece of paper. "
http://twitch.tv/woetothevanquished
Ryzom also has very few people playing, though a lot more than Istaria but not sure how much. Ryzom far more active, but probably had 100-200 people playing and anything in that number is pretty good.
I've played many older indie MMOs, and most are pretty active. Istaria is the main example I can think of, its labeled as an MMO but very dead and has far less people playing than any of the survival sandbox games.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
we need to look for a game that has a player cap possible of less than 100. Not a game that only has 100 player playing.
big difference
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The point being, games vary widely in scope, not only in the terms of the size and layout of the play areas, but in the variety and complexity of the interactions between players and the environment they play within.
The nature of the game is what will determine the population that makes it effectively massive, not some arbitrary number chosen just because.
Dunbar's numbers brings it more home as fact then just opinion.
You have a set number of people you can realistically maintain a social relationship with. This is basically because of finite time and how much our brains can maintain. This would include ALL social relationships, so at 150 (which is the number they suggest) that would include all your real life realtionships + your in game relationships
Everyone else outside of that is in effect 'living NPCs'. However, in an MMO filled with thousands of players those 'living NPCs' are jumping around the cities having their own pew pew fights and getting in your face out of boredom. They are NOT doing things that make sense in the context of the city itself like getting laundry done.
I have currently been playing a game called Kingdoms and it has AI that roam round and 'fill' the world. but they are doing things that make sense that a real life player would likely not do all the time. Like farming, walking to market etc.
So as a result the world can actually feel MORE alive with less players if done right.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
He was not arguing that they are in fact MMOs he was asking why are they labeled as such. your reply was:
'They Havent , those are Not MMOs '
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/467246/what-have-mmos-become-40-player-max-per-server-is-not-an-mmo#sEp2A4ZpbbkcmAws.99
do you want to re-consider that reply?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Purely from a game play experience stand point I experience nearly zero difference between an MMO an a large private server game.
HOWEVER, private server games have existed for as long as MMOs have and over the course of that 20 years or so they have never been refered to as an MMO. but now we want to, I dont like that. That sounds like marketing manipulation to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
he said: 'why are these games being called MMOs'
you said: 'they are not'
reality is they are being called that
see?
read every word he said in your OP, then read your first response, then think about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests