Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Shared Worlds - A better and more fitting term for modern MMOs
TheScavenger
Member EpicPosts: 3,321
Lets go back a bit to start with.
Asheron's Call, Everquest 1, Ultima Online...they were real MMOs. No instances, no tiny 6 player co-op groups (which isn't massively multiplayer) and everyone was part of the same world.
Today, only EVE Online and Black Desert Online and maybe a couple others fit the classic definition of MMO. No instances, can see 1000s of players around you and you can have TRUE massively multiplayer sized groups (at least for EVE). There is no shared instances, everyone is part of the same experience. Like look at GW2, it even tells you to switch instances if the instance you are in has lost too many players...that is a shared world.
Shared Worlds however fit better for most modern MMOs.
Games that fit the definition of Shared Worlds (that are relatively modern) is FFXIV, GW2, WoW, SWTOR, ESO as just many examples.
In WoW, the vast majority of your time are in 6 player sized groups and spending time in instances. Also, in WoW you aren't part of one server but multiple instances of various servers and that makes WoW the ultimate example of a game that shouldn't be considered an MMO but a Shared World.
FFXIV/GW2/SWTOR/ESO also all have instances and tiny groups. They all focus heavily on soloing, or co-op experiences. All have Co-op experiences (again like WoW has 6 player sized groups, that is a co-op experience). Games like ESO/SWTOR heavily focus on soloing most content, and the people around you could just as well be NPCs...a very fitting description of Shared Worlds. SWTOR especially is solo only from level 1 to max level, and you only share the world with others but with very limited interaction.
This solves the debate of what an MMO is and is not. Many games fit the Shared World definition, but very few games fit the classic MMO definition. In old MMOs, instances, shared servers and multiple "channels" of the zone you are in and tiny 6 player sized co-op groups was unheard of. All that makes the game a shared world. But EVE Online is truly open with no instances, huge massive groups and everyone takes part in the same server (in fact there is only 1 server) and that makes it a true MMO, and any MMOs like that a true classic MMO. Most new games are more Shared Worlds however than classic MMOs.
This should make everyone happy on all sides of the debate.
Asheron's Call, Everquest 1, Ultima Online...they were real MMOs. No instances, no tiny 6 player co-op groups (which isn't massively multiplayer) and everyone was part of the same world.
Today, only EVE Online and Black Desert Online and maybe a couple others fit the classic definition of MMO. No instances, can see 1000s of players around you and you can have TRUE massively multiplayer sized groups (at least for EVE). There is no shared instances, everyone is part of the same experience. Like look at GW2, it even tells you to switch instances if the instance you are in has lost too many players...that is a shared world.
Shared Worlds however fit better for most modern MMOs.
Games that fit the definition of Shared Worlds (that are relatively modern) is FFXIV, GW2, WoW, SWTOR, ESO as just many examples.
In WoW, the vast majority of your time are in 6 player sized groups and spending time in instances. Also, in WoW you aren't part of one server but multiple instances of various servers and that makes WoW the ultimate example of a game that shouldn't be considered an MMO but a Shared World.
FFXIV/GW2/SWTOR/ESO also all have instances and tiny groups. They all focus heavily on soloing, or co-op experiences. All have Co-op experiences (again like WoW has 6 player sized groups, that is a co-op experience). Games like ESO/SWTOR heavily focus on soloing most content, and the people around you could just as well be NPCs...a very fitting description of Shared Worlds. SWTOR especially is solo only from level 1 to max level, and you only share the world with others but with very limited interaction.
This solves the debate of what an MMO is and is not. Many games fit the Shared World definition, but very few games fit the classic MMO definition. In old MMOs, instances, shared servers and multiple "channels" of the zone you are in and tiny 6 player sized co-op groups was unheard of. All that makes the game a shared world. But EVE Online is truly open with no instances, huge massive groups and everyone takes part in the same server (in fact there is only 1 server) and that makes it a true MMO, and any MMOs like that a true classic MMO. Most new games are more Shared Worlds however than classic MMOs.
This should make everyone happy on all sides of the debate.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
![[Deleted User]](http://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e56c383c521b3c9f24f9e63720cc9075.svg)
Comments
They said they can only raise the cap as far as the game and servers can handle it, and with right now how small the instances are...it probably won't be a big difference. Definitely not on the scale of EVE Online. Star Citizen however fits perfectly in the Shared World category, whether the instance cap goes to 100 or not, it fits perfectly the shared world. (which 100 would still be VERY low, especially again compared to EVE where 1000+ people can be in the same system). Even if it capped out at 1000 player instances, if you can't see EVERYONE, that is still an instance and still fits the shared world category.
Look at EVE, there is no system cap (it does lag though if a lot of players are in it), there are no instances or any of that junk. A true classic MMO. But more games are like Star Citizen where its a Shared World experience.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Hack-and-Slash-Online would be better definition of what we have now.
MMO's are gone, not a single one, so it's hard to split if their is nothing their !.....What your trying to do is split hack-and-slash-online into two categories. Instanced and noninstanced.
I don't think anyone really likes small zones, load times and deep instanced.
So their you have it:
- Hack-and-Slash-Online ( easy and solo )
- MMOs ( community effort )
Referring to Hack n slash games is nonsense, you mean third person action games I think.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Well, I could almost agree to not split the definition. I think it should, but I could respect those who don't. BUT if it were:
- Hack-and Slash-Online (everything)
- MMO (none)
If your all geared up at level 27, how many mobs can you take on solo, 10, 15 maybe 20. Why even craft in Hack-and-Slash-Online ?..... Why even have a health meter, your health bar never goes down.
See Joe over there ?.... He doesn't need any help, he's hacking and slashing by himself.
mmo my butt !
This is truly great, I really wish you the best
I wish we could have at least one mmo where you have to think and build your character. Study and use percentages. Make your self different from the other Warlocks or Rangers. I would like to say " I'll not last if I try that, but let me try ". Craft where what you made will last six or seven levels before your finding it's just not good enough any more, time to make a new one.
I would like to be level 27 for a few days and get a new ability on Thursday that would re-direct my entire strategy. Now, I have to go off by myself and figure out my new style of fighting.
It would be nice to know I have to have several different ways of fighting.
one for when I start the fight
one if I'll be fighting a caster
one for when I get jumped by a mob of 4
one for playing with others
I would like to THINK at least a little bit...... Just one mmo, ONE !
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
They predate the trend toward simplification going on for some time now.
There is no need for more labels, afterall that is why the meaning of the original term broadened up.
The term MMO is purely about the number of people within the same virtual environment. That number is up for debate - Richard Garriott and Raph Koster originally put it at 250 people - but whatever number you settle on doesn't matter too much, as long as it is massively bigger than average online multiplayer games.
So, if someone released an online shooter that supported 500 player maps, that would be an MMO, even though the world was not persistent and was just an instance. If someone released a new moba that supported 200v200 maps, that would be an MMO.
What you are trying to do is create new classifications for online RPGs, as best I can tell. We could potentially make use of such new genres, but I wouldn't use "shared world" as a term as it is pretty meaningless. I also don't think the distinction you are trying to make (100% persistent open world game vs one with instances) is even that important, given how few games exist within the genre.
There is only one new classification that I would introduce: selectively multiplayer online.
We already have MMOG - massively multiplayer online games - meaning the game supports a massive amount of players within the same virtual environment connected via the internet. WoW, ESO, FFXIV, EvE all fit this category. The online component is mandatory to play the game.
We already have MOG - multiplayer online games - meaning the same as MMOG, just less players within the same virtual environment. This is where Destiny, The Division, LoL, DotA2 etc fit. Again, the online component is mandatory.
Then, I'd like to see SMOG - selectively multiplayer online games - meaning that the game can be played offline solo, but if you choose to then you can also play it online with other people. This is where games like Diablo 3 would fit, potentially GTAV too. If any of you have played Xenoblade Chronicles X, this is the category that game would fit into too.
From there, you just need to classify the game - the "G" part. We already have MMORPG, MMOFPS, MOBA etc. But, it sounds like you'd like to break it up further so that it is easier to spot the features just from the genre.
So, MMOPRPG - persistent RPG - would be used to classify games where everything is persistent, i.e. no instances. Then MMOIRPG - instanced RPG - would be used to classify games that mix instances and persistent zones. Do you then want to add more acronyms for sandbox vs themepark?
Again, I don't think it's worth it. Differentiating between persistent or instanced is only important if that persistence has gameplay implications. Something like LotRO has persistent zones - the majority of the game is persistent - and it only spins up new layers if a zone is overcrowded. But do those persistent zones matter? Players cannot alter the zones, they cannot build there, influence factions or perma-kill bosses, so the persistence has zero effect on gameplay. Compare that to something like SWG where players can build cities, the persistence is critical to the functioning of the game.
Then, think about the upcoming Crowfall and the Eternal Kingdoms. Those are instanced and, iirc, will have player caps, but they are also persistent.
I think we already have enough words to describe sub-genres of RPGs that we don't need to create more. Sandbox vs themepark. Open world versus linear. ARPG / CRPG. First person vs third person. Solo versus companions. Rogue-likes. Tactical RPGs....
I self identify as a monkey.
The definition is maybe too technical, leaving many games in a grey zone.
How about turning it upside down? Forget about the mmo definition battle, however correct you are it can not be won. Instead of genre labelling we could use attributes to describe games. Mmo can no longer be used as a genre definition because the games are vastly different, but you can't get rid of the term, and you can't really subdefine them either because many are a mix of several subdefinitions.
So lets use attributes instead, and the set of attributes will describe a game.
Some examples could be (totally not thought through):
Virtual world, lobby based, story driven, action, builder maybe sandbox, co-op, pvp, skill based (player skill rather than character skill), ...uhm probably better and more precise attribute descriptors out there so shoot.
Well anyways..
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
It's a large-scale compartmentalized MP game.
Well, I see what your driving at here.
By your little Pegasus story, your using it as an example that I made up at fantasy mmo custom made to fit my likes only. But you know exactly what I'm driving at.... Just one real mmo.
Just one !
Some people would assert that Star Wars Galaxies was a "real mmo" yet a friend who played it thought that it was horrible and felt like a 2nd job. Yet he loved the original everquest.
Kano has a point, one could spend their lives complaining or they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and find something enjoyable in the available offerings. Or just do something else.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yes, this is true. You could have all kind of variables.
Likes and dislikes in styles. If we had just one it may not be the one for me or maybe it's not the one for you. I didn't like FF11 at all, but I did like EQ2. I'm sure during this time in history we all had our likes and dislikes....But now we don't have any.
What I'm saying we don't have even one !
Well, we'll see if Pantheon launches and see how that goes.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
How about: "game".
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?"
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Where as games that quickly shard themselves off and put people in their own little instances could almost be saying "There now you don't need to share with as many people". Sharing is all about these little compromises, and tossing players into those instances is all about not needing to compromise (not sharing spawns, not needing to at some point be a member of the "support cast", and similar).
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
When you are successful in doing that, let me know, and I will change my usage too.