some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
Yeah, but that is because a lot of oldschool MMO fans on this site. They are stuck to their old ways, wishing for old MMOs to come back and how all new MMOs suck.
Other sites regard MMOs has a vastly larger section of games than this site does (as far as users go on the sites, not the staff/admins).
And 1000 people isn't even really massive these days, when you can get nearly the same sized servers in multiplayer FPS games or games like Ark (the dinosaur survival game). So the "massive" part isn't anything special anymore either. Especially with how much instancing there is.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
Yeah, but that is because a lot of oldschool MMO fans on this site. They are stuck to their old ways, wishing for old MMOs to come back and how all new MMOs suck.
Other sites regard MMOs has a vastly larger section of games than this site does (as far as users go on the sites, not the staff/admins).
And 1000 people isn't even really massive these days, when you can get nearly the same sized servers in multiplayer FPS games or games like Ark (the dinosaur survival game). So the "massive" part isn't anything special anymore either. Especially with how much instancing there is.
Yeah, just like some people try to make solitare a mmo, because a ton of people are using the same app, at the same time, so it must be massive.... I don't consider something a mmo, even if 4 billion people are on the same server, if the most you could ever see in a game on your screen playing is 4-6. It is more of a instance/lobby game, 4 billion does nothing more for you, verse hundreds, since the pairing is so low. No amount of word twisting, or rebranding is going to make me say LoL type games are mmos. You might as well say mmo means game, and stop using it....have you played the new game game? If you water something down, to the point that it doesn't mean much, what's the point? You could start calling fantasy dungeon crawls FPS, since you 'shoot' bows/spells... I just don't see the point.
some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
It's not about whether everyone in the community is on my screen at the same time, it's about if I go out into the world will there be hundreds or thousands of other players who I can encounter during the course of my play, or will they all be in separate instances where I will never see them even if we both walk past the same exact spot at the same exact time.
Is the world populated with other players, or am I only running around with the people in my party / a competing party in PvP instances.
That's the difference between an MMO and a run of the mill multiplayer game.
Well like I said in my other thread, these modern "MMOs" games (and Destiny 2) are better considered Shared Worlds.
Those games with instances, co-op sized groups (which is the vast majority of themeparks) and shared servers (like WoW, you can be on any server that it puts you in to "populate" the world) or instances of each individual zone within the one server. They are all Shared Worlds.
Classic MMOs as defined by old MMOs are large groups (the possibility of large groups), no instances and no co-op groups. They are games like Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even the rare new "classic" style MMO like EVE Online or Black Desert Online. EVE is the perfect example of a classic style MMO, as there are no instances, a system can have 1k+ players in it (even though it lags) and groups can be huge and are not co-op sized.
Destiny 2 is the perfect game for a Shared Worlds genre. It isn't an MMO as defined by Classic MMOs, but it is a Shared World experience found in newer online games.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
So you are living in a city with 1 million inhabitants, you have a flat in a building within that city that 100 other people also live, does that mean by your logic that you are living in a village?, i mean you cant possibly see all the 1 million people at the same time but you regular see your 100 neighbours.
By the way where is it written that massively means hundreds or more? I'm only asking since we're being sticklers for facts and not feelings.
Massively is an adverb, so applies to the word multiplayer.
For something to be considered massive, it has to big significantly larger than normal / average. So, what is the normal or average for an online multiplayer game? Most online multiplayer games can support between 2 and 64 players, but a fair few stretch to 100+.
So, pick a number that is massively bigger than 100. It's a subjective number, but as long as it is significantly bigger, you're fine. I personally put that number at 500.
Also note that because the word massive is a comparison to what else is available, it is a moving target. If every online multiplayer game only supported 10 players, then 50 players would be considered massively bigger. As time goes by, the number of supported players is gradually increasing and so the average for multiplayer goes up, so the threshold for massively multiplayer also goes up. Richard Garriott set the threshold at 250 when he was defining the genre 20 years ago as at that point, online multiplayer games were still quite small scale so 250 was "massively" larger than the average.
By the way where is it written that massively means hundreds or more? I'm only asking since we're being sticklers for facts and not feelings.
Massively is an adverb, so applies to the word multiplayer.
For something to be considered massive, it has to big significantly larger than normal / average. So, what is the normal or average for an online multiplayer game? Most online multiplayer games can support between 2 and 64 players, but a fair few stretch to 100+.
So, pick a number that is massively bigger than 100. It's a subjective number, but as long as it is significantly bigger, you're fine. I personally put that number at 500.
Also note that because the word massive is a comparison to what else is available, it is a moving target. If every online multiplayer game only supported 10 players, then 50 players would be considered massively bigger. As time goes by, the number of supported players is gradually increasing and so the average for multiplayer goes up, so the threshold for massively multiplayer also goes up. Richard Garriott set the threshold at 250 when he was defining the genre 20 years ago as at that point, online multiplayer games were still quite small scale so 250 was "massively" larger than the average.
That is horrible reasoning. I asked for facts not feelings or manufactured numbers which is exactly what you spewed back out at me. I've heard all the fantasy logic before, but people keep throwing out numbers like they're facts that mean something. They're not.
Anway, So if Richard Garriott is the person who defines what an MMO is. And Shroud of the Avatar, which is an mmo, has a lower player cap per zone than your manufactured 250 player number then that would mean that almost all multiplayer games are mmos and @TheScavenger is right saying D2 is an mmo. You shot yourself in the foot bringing Garriott as the MMO authority into the argument. He may have said one thing at one time in the distant past, but actions his actions with SotA show differently.
Other than multiplayer means 2+ people and that massively is an adverb you've not made any ground. Those were obvious and didn't need pointed out in the first place. Everything else you said is unsubstantiated conjecture.
I agree and I'll pile on to add to this and say that there is always a lot of discussion around what "Massive" means, but an MMORPG is much more a framework than something literal. For instance, if you had a game that supported millions of players but stripped out all the social features and progression, you'd likely face a similarly difficult uphill battle to justify that game as an MMORPG. There are expectations of features to be included in an MMORPG, and the number of players you are able to interact with is ONE of those characteristics, but it's not THE defining feature.
The game can be played online concurrently by a massive number of players, so it is an MMO by definition. Nothing about an MMO requires that the massive number of players all be playing in such a way that they are constantly accessible to each other.
Your use of the word "concurrently" is where your misunderstanding of what an MMO is stems from.
Concurrent - at the same time / simultaneously.
That has nothing to do with multiplayer. Being a multiplayer game means the people playing within the same virtual environment. So, Call of Duty, Battlefield, PUBG etc all have 1000s or millions playing concurrently, but the multiplayer part of it is capped at a low number. The same is true for Destiny and Destiny 2 - they may support 1000s concurrently playing the game, but when it comes to the multiplayer bit, the number is capped low.
So, given that "massively" is an adverb and is applied to the word "multiplayer", to be an MMO you have to support a massive amount of people within the same virtual environment. WoW, FFXIV, ESO, LotRO etc all support 1000s within the same virtual environment, Destiny does not.
It has everything to do with multiplayer. That is what multiplayer means, multiple concurrent players, with the exception of hot seat games where it is consecutive.
It doesn't matter if the number is capped low, so long as it is more than one.
Nothing about the definition requires that thousands of players exist in the same environment during play. It simply requires that a massive number of people can play the game concurrently. You are simply trying to make historical examples of MMORPGs defining of MMOs in general, which they are not. The genre has expanded beyond them.
The reality is that the vast majority of actual play in MMORPGs does not take place in areas of high player concentration in any case. Rather, most of the play takes place removed from that, either solo or in comparatively small groups of people when contrasted with the overall population... groups often similar in size to those in Destiny and other similar titles. In many MMORPGs these areas become instanced upon group entry, making them even more similar.
As such, the difference is more a matter of form than function, that form being what surrounds the play. Those MMOs that fit the traditional form of MMORPGs are described as such. MMOs that don't are not, being typically described by whatever sub-genre they are in.
Essentially, MMO is a broad category of games, of which MMORPG is but one type. Other types of games are also included within, and this variety will continue to expand over time as multiplayer games of different genres are released.
MMO is ONLY about the number of people that can exist within the same virtual environment. Just look at the words:
Multiplayer - the game allows 2 or more people to interact within the same game world
Online - the gamers connect to one another via the internet
Massively - adverb, applies to the world multiplayer, meaning the multiplayer aspect is considered significantly bigger than standard multiplayer
It is fairly basic English comprehension. It also fits with the history of MMOs. It also fits with the definitions given by some of the pioneers of MMOs. It even fits with what modern developers are telling us: Bungie does not call Destiny or Destiny 2 an MMO, in fact they outright deny it because they know it isn't!
But, lets look at where you are falling down. For some bizarre reason, you seem to believe that playing the game at the same time as someone else counts as being multiplayer. Why? That has never been the definition of multiplayer!
Multiplayer has always meant the ability to play at the same time AND interact with them. If we cannot interact, it is not multiplayer. I can go to https://www.solitr.com/ and play a game of solitaire there, and you could do so at the same time. That would mean we are playing the game concurrently but, without the ability to interact with each other, we are not playing a multiplayer game.
The same is true of Destiny. There is a cap of 16 people in any given instance (or, so I'm told). If you want to interact with any of the other 1000s of people playing the game at the same time as you (concurrent users), you have to leave the game world (instance) and return to a lobby via loading screens, then connect with them and enter their instance. You are never sharing the same game world with more than 16 players at any given moment. If you want to play with a friend who is not in your current instance, there is no possible way for the two of you to play together (multiplayer) without one or both of you leaving the gameworld and loading into a new version of it. If you have 50 friends playing the game, there is no possible way for all 50 of you to meet up in game. So, with a cap of 16 players, the game cannot be defined as massively multiplayer....just normal multiplayer.
And again, there is nothing wrong with that! Destiny as a game is fine. It has a lot of features within it that are similar to standard MMORPG features - quests, leveling, loot, dungeons, raids - so the game will appeal to a lot of MMORPG fans. But, do not confuse it for an MMO, because it isn't. If you do consider it an MMO, then absolutely every single game that has ever had online multiplayer is also an MMO. If you consider that statement to be true, there is no helping you.
MMO means simply means the ability for the game to be concurrently played by a massive number of people online. There is no requirement beyond that.
For a game to be multiplayer it does have to have the capacity to play along with other players, obviously. That doesn't require that any particular number of players must be able to do so, nor that does it require that they must constantly be able to do so. Nor does it require anyone to choose to interact with other players, regardless of the provided opportunity.
That the cap of Destiny is greater than one in an instance, makes it an MMO. That you may or may not be able to interact with other player outside the instance while in one is totally irrelevant. Nothing about an MMO requires that the opportunity to do so must be a constant.
The use of instances is hardly limited to games of this type, being used in several MMORPGs for dungeons and whatnot, so is no argument against the MMO status of the game.
The ability to meet with 50 people simultaneously isn't an intrinsic requirement for an MMO, simply one that some MMOs have.
Destiny is similar to MMORPGs in some features, but falls short of actually being one... which is why it is an MMO rather than an MMORPG.
I don't need to be helped, especially if that help consists of arbitrary requirements some wish to apply to MMOs that aren't essential elements other than in their own opinion.
I get it when it comes to PC but until then I will not judge. It does appear to be a hub based shooter with some common MMO elements. But then again there are single player games with MMO elements and they aren't considered an MMO.
Why do we even have dictionaries? Words should mean whatever we want them to mean. "You're a giant poopyhead." can mean "I love you more than life itself." If that's what I want it to mean.
By the way where is it written that massively means hundreds or more? I'm only asking since we're being sticklers for facts and not feelings.
That is horrible reasoning. I asked for facts not feelings or manufactured numbers which is exactly what you spewed back out at me. I've heard all the fantasy logic before, but people keep throwing out numbers like they're facts that mean something. They're not.
Anway, So if Richard Garriott is the person who defines what an MMO is. And Shroud of the Avatar, which is an mmo, has a lower player cap per zone than your manufactured 250 player number then that would mean that almost all multiplayer games are mmos and @TheScavenger is right saying D2 is an mmo. You shot yourself in the foot bringing Garriott as the MMO authority into the argument. He may have said one thing at one time in the distant past, but actions his actions with SotA show differently.
Other than multiplayer means 2+ people and that massively is an adverb you've not made any ground. Those were obvious and didn't need pointed out in the first place. Everything else you said is unsubstantiated conjecture.
First, I don't know the details about Shroud of the Avatar, I've never played it and their website is short on detail. Garriott's number of 250 refers to the same virtual world, but that world can encompass multiple zones. So, even if a zone has a cap of 100 players, as long as there are multiple zones all belonging to the same persistent virtual world, he's good. Also, his statement of 250 was made this year, on this website, when mmorpg.com asked him directly to define what MMO means. He was also backed up by Raph Koster, the mmorpg.com staff and most of the commenters.
Second, most people who mis-label games as an MMO do not understand what an adverb is. I'm glad you do, but so many people on this forum do not understand which is why I repeat it a lot. Most people on this site who misuse the MMO label believe the word "massively" applies to the game as a whole, and not just the multiplayer aspect. This is the primary cause of confusion.
Third, "massive" and it's adverb "massively" have specific meanings. Again, I'm glad you understand them but it is very clear from these forums that a lot of people don't. To call something massive, you are making a comparison to something else. Unless otherwise specified, that comparison is made to other similar things. A massive building is a building that is significantly bigger than other buildings. A massive elephant is an elephant that is significantly bigger than other elephants. So, with MMOs, it can be called massively multiplayer if the multiplayer aspect is significantly bigger than other multiplayer games.
None of this is horrible reasoning. This reasoning is all factual. It is just basic English comprehension. This sort of thing is taught to 12 year olds with no difficulty. I don't know why you are struggling with it. I mean, is something I've written incorrect?
The only thing you can justifiably argue against is that I have not given you a hard number for the average player cap in online multiplayer games. I am afraid I have not had the time to go out, find every single multiplayer game, find the player cap and come up with an average. So, instead I'll just give you some of the most popular, based off Steam's best selling multiplayer games
PUBG - 100 D:OS2 - 4 Spacehulk Deathwing - 4 Rocket League - 8 Battlefleet Gothic Armada - 4 Farming Simulator 17 - 16 GTAV - 32 CS:GO - 64 F1 2017 - 20 Blood Bowl 2 - 2 Rainbow Six Siege - 10 Football Manager 2017 - 22 (couldn't track down specifics, but seeing as max 22 players on the pitch...) Ark: Survival Evolved - 70 (official, unofficial more) Total War: Warhammer - 2 The Escapists 2 - 4 XCOM 2 - 4? (again, hard to find specifics) Mordheim - 2 Rust - 50 (default, can set it as high as you want)
I'm bored, but average number of players from 18 of the top selling multiplayer games on steam is 23.
Lets add in some other games that we know are popular, just not on steam.
I could keep going, but what's the point? We both know the results won't change much. It might shrink a bit once you've included every single possible multiplayer online game, or might grow a bit if you weighted the player caps against the popularity of the game.
So, if the average multiplayer online game can only support 23 players within the same virtual environment, can you explain to me how Destiny, which can only support 16, is massively multiplayer? Last time I looked, 16 is less than 23.
What am I getting wrong here? Do you comprehend English differently to me? Do you have a different definition of multiplayer? Is your understanding of maths different? Do we have a different understanding of what it means to be in the same virtual environment? Is it a tech problem, not understanding how virtual environment relates to zones / instances / layers / servers / shards?
I get it when people lack english comprehension I get when people lack understanding of the technology I get when people mis-label due to feature comparison I get when people mis-label for marketing purposes I get when people mis-label for trolling fun
You don't seem to fall into any of those, which is unique!
The game can be played online concurrently by a massive number of players, so it is an MMO by definition. Nothing about an MMO requires that the massive number of players all be playing in such a way that they are constantly accessible to each other.
Your use of the word "concurrently" is where your misunderstanding of what an MMO is stems from.
Concurrent - at the same time / simultaneously.
That has nothing to do with multiplayer. Being a multiplayer game means the people playing within the same virtual environment. So, Call of Duty, Battlefield, PUBG etc all have 1000s or millions playing concurrently, but the multiplayer part of it is capped at a low number. The same is true for Destiny and Destiny 2 - they may support 1000s concurrently playing the game, but when it comes to the multiplayer bit, the number is capped low.
So, given that "massively" is an adverb and is applied to the word "multiplayer", to be an MMO you have to support a massive amount of people within the same virtual environment. WoW, FFXIV, ESO, LotRO etc all support 1000s within the same virtual environment, Destiny does not.
It has everything to do with multiplayer. That is what multiplayer means, multiple concurrent players, with the exception of hot seat games where it is consecutive.
It doesn't matter if the number is capped low, so long as it is more than one.
Nothing about the definition requires that thousands of players exist in the same environment during play. It simply requires that a massive number of people can play the game concurrently. You are simply trying to make historical examples of MMORPGs defining of MMOs in general, which they are not. The genre has expanded beyond them.
The reality is that the vast majority of actual play in MMORPGs does not take place in areas of high player concentration in any case. Rather, most of the play takes place removed from that, either solo or in comparatively small groups of people when contrasted with the overall population... groups often similar in size to those in Destiny and other similar titles. In many MMORPGs these areas become instanced upon group entry, making them even more similar.
As such, the difference is more a matter of form than function, that form being what surrounds the play. Those MMOs that fit the traditional form of MMORPGs are described as such. MMOs that don't are not, being typically described by whatever sub-genre they are in.
Essentially, MMO is a broad category of games, of which MMORPG is but one type. Other types of games are also included within, and this variety will continue to expand over time as multiplayer games of different genres are released.
MMO is ONLY about the number of people that can exist within the same virtual environment. Just look at the words:
Multiplayer - the game allows 2 or more people to interact within the same game world
Online - the gamers connect to one another via the internet
Massively - adverb, applies to the world multiplayer, meaning the multiplayer aspect is considered significantly bigger than standard multiplayer
It is fairly basic English comprehension. It also fits with the history of MMOs. It also fits with the definitions given by some of the pioneers of MMOs. It even fits with what modern developers are telling us: Bungie does not call Destiny or Destiny 2 an MMO, in fact they outright deny it because they know it isn't!
But, lets look at where you are falling down. For some bizarre reason, you seem to believe that playing the game at the same time as someone else counts as being multiplayer. Why? That has never been the definition of multiplayer!
Multiplayer has always meant the ability to play at the same time AND interact with them. If we cannot interact, it is not multiplayer. I can go to https://www.solitr.com/ and play a game of solitaire there, and you could do so at the same time. That would mean we are playing the game concurrently but, without the ability to interact with each other, we are not playing a multiplayer game.
The same is true of Destiny. There is a cap of 16 people in any given instance (or, so I'm told). If you want to interact with any of the other 1000s of people playing the game at the same time as you (concurrent users), you have to leave the game world (instance) and return to a lobby via loading screens, then connect with them and enter their instance. You are never sharing the same game world with more than 16 players at any given moment. If you want to play with a friend who is not in your current instance, there is no possible way for the two of you to play together (multiplayer) without one or both of you leaving the gameworld and loading into a new version of it. If you have 50 friends playing the game, there is no possible way for all 50 of you to meet up in game. So, with a cap of 16 players, the game cannot be defined as massively multiplayer....just normal multiplayer.
And again, there is nothing wrong with that! Destiny as a game is fine. It has a lot of features within it that are similar to standard MMORPG features - quests, leveling, loot, dungeons, raids - so the game will appeal to a lot of MMORPG fans. But, do not confuse it for an MMO, because it isn't. If you do consider it an MMO, then absolutely every single game that has ever had online multiplayer is also an MMO. If you consider that statement to be true, there is no helping you.
MMO means simply means the ability for the game to be concurrently played by a massive number of people online. There is no requirement beyond that.
For a game to be multiplayer it does have to have the capacity to play along with other players, obviously. That doesn't require that any particular number of players must be able to do so, nor that does it require that they must constantly be able to do so. Nor does it require anyone to choose to interact with other players, regardless of the provided opportunity.
That the cap of Destiny is greater than one in an instance, makes it an MMO. That you may or may not be able to interact with other player outside the instance while in one is totally irrelevant. Nothing about an MMO requires that the opportunity to do so must be a constant.
The use of instances is hardly limited to games of this type, being used in several MMORPGs for dungeons and whatnot, so is no argument against the MMO status of the game.
The ability to meet with 50 people simultaneously isn't an intrinsic requirement for an MMO, simply one that some MMOs have.
Destiny is similar to MMORPGs in some features, but falls short of actually being one... which is why it is an MMO rather than an MMORPG.
I don't need to be helped, especially if that help consists of arbitrary requirements some wish to apply to MMOs that aren't essential elements other than in their own opinion.
Then go ahead and add Call of Duty, Battlefield, The Last of Us, and every other game that has multiplayer.. The acronym becomes meaningless. Doubt the acronym was created or ever intended simply as a synonym for multiplayer.
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Agreed, but do know Destiny has MANY MMORPG traits, not just levels, gear, skills etc. It also has dailies, reputation grind and token grind, factions, dungeons, raids etc. It would be save to say that EXCEPT for the number of concurrent players Destiny actually is an MMORPG.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
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
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?"
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Agreed, but do know Destiny has MANY MMORPG traits, not just levels, gear, skills etc. It also has dailies, reputation grind and token grind, factions, dungeons, raids etc. It would be save to say that EXCEPT for the number of concurrent players Destiny actually is an MMORPG.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
True, but the crux of the difference between, say, Diablo and World of Warcraft doesn't have to do with these items, though.
I get your point that they borrow heavily, but it would make Dragon Age: Inquisition an MMORPG as well.
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Agreed, but do know Destiny has MANY MMORPG traits, not just levels, gear, skills etc. It also has dailies, reputation grind and token grind, factions, dungeons, raids etc. It would be save to say that EXCEPT for the number of concurrent players Destiny actually is an MMORPG.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
True, but the crux of the difference between, say, Diablo and World of Warcraft doesn't have to do with these items, though.
I get your point that they borrow heavily, but it would make Dragon Age: Inquisition an MMORPG as well.
Because DAI has persistent multiplayer in an open shared world setting. Please do keep pushing the absurd. It makes for great laughs.
Yes, because judging a game's genre based on its popularity ISN'T absurd. DA:I has persistent multiplayer. You match with other players to fight through and complete objectives with bosses at the end and loot/XP rewards (including leveling up each individual class and building their skills in whatever way you choose).
The only thing absurd is the idea that massively multiplayer means exactly the same thing as multiplayer. But hey, thought you didn't care to have this convo?
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Agreed, but do know Destiny has MANY MMORPG traits, not just levels, gear, skills etc. It also has dailies, reputation grind and token grind, factions, dungeons, raids etc. It would be save to say that EXCEPT for the number of concurrent players Destiny actually is an MMORPG.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
True, but the crux of the difference between, say, Diablo and World of Warcraft doesn't have to do with these items, though.
I get your point that they borrow heavily, but it would make Dragon Age: Inquisition an MMORPG as well.
Because DAI has persistent multiplayer in an open shared world setting. Please do keep pushing the absurd. It makes for great laughs.
Yes, because judging a game's genre based on its popularity ISN'T absurd. DA:I has persistent multiplayer. You match with other players to fight through and complete objectives with bosses at the end and loot/XP rewards (including leveling up each individual class and building their skills in whatever way you choose).
The only thing absurd is the idea that massively multiplayer means exactly the same thing as multiplayer. But hey, thought you didn't care to have this convo?
It has persistent multiplayer in a shared world environment? I don't think so. Leaving out one of the obvious just so you can soapbox about a non-issue is what make these posts so comical.
No one confuses the limitations of DAI with the lack of them in other games. It's fairly clear where the limitations of Borderlands 2 and DAI lie. But it's less clear when we're talking about games like SWL, Destiny 2, and on into games we consider full MMORPGs like ESO, LotRO, etc.
Very few people try and assert that all multiplayer is equivalent, but practically speaking categorizing that aspect of multiplayer is often pointless. Note that SWL and D2 have gone out of their way to avoid the MMO tar pit. Yet there are some people that feel a need to try and pull them into the mire just to point out that they're not MMOs, something they've tried really hard to communicate already. So is your camp just trying to make sure everyone knows your opinion counts?
My camp is discussing topics posted on a discussion board, you're the folks who constantly engage in discussions you simultaneously attempt to belittle, despite it inherently belittling yourself as associated with the discussion.
Sorry, but simply borrowing gameplay mechanics from another genre does not alter the genre you're borrowing from. If you want to get into the grey area, sure.. 16 player caps aren't a grey area.
Knightfalz unfortunately is also confusing MMORPG as meaning something
larger than MMO, rather than MMORPG's just being a type of MMO, which is
possibly where a good deal of the confusion he has with the whole 'what
constitutes an MMO' stems from. AFAIK Destiny 2 is more a FPS than an
RPG, making it an MOFPS, but either way, not an MMO as there is already a
game that does represent an actual MMOFPS and that is Planetside 2
which is literally hundreds of players on each of the continents that
are being contested, a mere 16 players would barely constitute a platoon
in Planetside, 16 is a number which forever precludes Destiny 2 from
ever being classed as an MMO of any description, in this i think
Cameltosis' arguments are well reasoned and clearly demonstrate the
differences between a multiplayer online game, and a massively
multiplayer online game.
Agreed, but do know Destiny has MANY MMORPG traits, not just levels, gear, skills etc. It also has dailies, reputation grind and token grind, factions, dungeons, raids etc. It would be save to say that EXCEPT for the number of concurrent players Destiny actually is an MMORPG.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
True, but the crux of the difference between, say, Diablo and World of Warcraft doesn't have to do with these items, though.
I get your point that they borrow heavily, but it would make Dragon Age: Inquisition an MMORPG as well.
Because DAI has persistent multiplayer in an open shared world setting. Please do keep pushing the absurd. It makes for great laughs.
Yes, because judging a game's genre based on its popularity ISN'T absurd. DA:I has persistent multiplayer. You match with other players to fight through and complete objectives with bosses at the end and loot/XP rewards (including leveling up each individual class and building their skills in whatever way you choose).
The only thing absurd is the idea that massively multiplayer means exactly the same thing as multiplayer. But hey, thought you didn't care to have this convo?
It has persistent multiplayer in a shared world environment? I don't think so. Leaving out one of the obvious just so you can soapbox about a non-issue is what make these posts so comical.
No one confuses the limitations of DAI with the lack of them in other games. It's fairly clear where the limitations of Borderlands 2 and DAI lie. But it's less clear when we're talking about games like SWL, Destiny 2, and on into games we consider full MMORPGs like ESO, LotRO, etc.
Very few people try and assert that all multiplayer is equivalent, but practically speaking categorizing that aspect of multiplayer is often pointless. Note that SWL and D2 have gone out of their way to avoid the MMO tar pit. Yet there are some people that feel a need to try and pull them into the mire just to point out that they're not MMOs, something they've tried really hard to communicate already. So is your camp just trying to make sure everyone knows your opinion counts?
My camp is discussing topics posted on a discussion board, you're the folks who constantly engage in discussions you simultaneously attempt to belittle, despite it inherently belittling yourself as associated with the discussion.
Sorry, but simply borrowing gameplay mechanics from another genre does not alter the genre you're borrowing from. If you want to get into the grey area, sure.. 16 player caps aren't a grey area.
Did I say it altered the genre? I don't even necessarily disagree with your view, but you're arguing with the wind. I'm not saying your wrong and I'm not sure I've ever disagreed with consensus of an mmorpg definition, but I am saying it doesn't matter or the vast majority of people don't even care. You're trying hard to make it relevant.
some people are just salty that the term "mmo" got broader and now covers more games than the classic mmos of old.
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
So you are living in a city with 1 million inhabitants, you have a flat in a building within that city that 100 other people also live, does that mean by your logic that you are living in a village?, i mean you cant possibly see all the 1 million people at the same time but you regular see your 100 neighbours.
If you can only ever interact with 100 at a time does it matter one way or the other what you call it? The fact isn't based in the name or description but in the actual situation. The 1M person pool defines an aspect of the nature of that interaction but not the scope.
Say in theory you could pack 800 people in that apartment, but say the quality and magnitude of interaction decreases as population increases over 100, representing the affect of overcrowding on a server. You could get massive people in one place but then not be able to do the things possible when there were only 100 or less, but you could claim a larger scope. Does it matter that you can fit 800 people in the apartment if nothing productive can come of that?
Now let's introduce a new actor. Let's say this new apartment can hold 10,000 people. This allows your city to grow to be 100M. The ratio of people you can interact with is the same. The actual mass you can interact with has grown by a factor of 100 though. Is the previous apartment numbers of 100 or even 800 massive by comparison? Could you call the previous game an MMO anymore?
Maybe there's more to the massively part than just a number. Maybe it describes a number threshold and a quality of interaction among other things. I'm certainly not saying that numbers don't matter. I'm throwing out there that the "massively" that modifies multiplayer has more depth to it than a simple number.
Albion's recent launch reminded me that standing in a sea of nameplates and avatars isn't fun. That was the only thing "massively" about the game. The quality of interaction was not there so what did it matter that several hundred people were there except they were sharing the same poor experience.
Your point was well written, but my post were directed to the one I were quoting and his logic, not how I feel and think about the subject at hand.
Comments
You can have 100k people on a single server or on 1000 servers and you will never be able to see everyone on your screen together. So yeah, the term mmo covers server capacity now more than it does "people on your screen". Otherwise mmos have never existed because you have never been able to play with everyone together.
That is my opinion.
Other sites regard MMOs has a vastly larger section of games than this site does (as far as users go on the sites, not the staff/admins).
And 1000 people isn't even really massive these days, when you can get nearly the same sized servers in multiplayer FPS games or games like Ark (the dinosaur survival game). So the "massive" part isn't anything special anymore either. Especially with how much instancing there is.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Yeah, just like some people try to make solitare a mmo, because a ton of people are using the same app, at the same time, so it must be massive.... I don't consider something a mmo, even if 4 billion people are on the same server, if the most you could ever see in a game on your screen playing is 4-6. It is more of a instance/lobby game, 4 billion does nothing more for you, verse hundreds, since the pairing is so low. No amount of word twisting, or rebranding is going to make me say LoL type games are mmos. You might as well say mmo means game, and stop using it....have you played the new game game? If you water something down, to the point that it doesn't mean much, what's the point? You could start calling fantasy dungeon crawls FPS, since you 'shoot' bows/spells... I just don't see the point.
Is the world populated with other players, or am I only running around with the people in my party / a competing party in PvP instances.
That's the difference between an MMO and a run of the mill multiplayer game.
Also, even if it was about everyone being on your screen at the same time there would still be some games that fit that definition.
Those games with instances, co-op sized groups (which is the vast majority of themeparks) and shared servers (like WoW, you can be on any server that it puts you in to "populate" the world) or instances of each individual zone within the one server. They are all Shared Worlds.
Classic MMOs as defined by old MMOs are large groups (the possibility of large groups), no instances and no co-op groups. They are games like Ultima Online, Asheron's Call and even the rare new "classic" style MMO like EVE Online or Black Desert Online. EVE is the perfect example of a classic style MMO, as there are no instances, a system can have 1k+ players in it (even though it lags) and groups can be huge and are not co-op sized.
Destiny 2 is the perfect game for a Shared Worlds genre. It isn't an MMO as defined by Classic MMOs, but it is a Shared World experience found in newer online games.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Is Destiny 2 an MMO
Well back in my day it would not. But i do know for sure, the Graphic sure do look like the game was made in the 1990's
I retired retroactively..Haha
So you are living in a city with 1 million inhabitants, you have a flat in a building within that city that 100 other people also live, does that mean by your logic that you are living in a village?, i mean you cant possibly see all the 1 million people at the same time but you regular see your 100 neighbours.
For something to be considered massive, it has to big significantly larger than normal / average. So, what is the normal or average for an online multiplayer game? Most online multiplayer games can support between 2 and 64 players, but a fair few stretch to 100+.
So, pick a number that is massively bigger than 100. It's a subjective number, but as long as it is significantly bigger, you're fine. I personally put that number at 500.
Also note that because the word massive is a comparison to what else is available, it is a moving target. If every online multiplayer game only supported 10 players, then 50 players would be considered massively bigger. As time goes by, the number of supported players is gradually increasing and so the average for multiplayer goes up, so the threshold for massively multiplayer also goes up. Richard Garriott set the threshold at 250 when he was defining the genre 20 years ago as at that point, online multiplayer games were still quite small scale so 250 was "massively" larger than the average.
I agree and I'll pile on to add to this and say that there is always a lot of discussion around what "Massive" means, but an MMORPG is much more a framework than something literal. For instance, if you had a game that supported millions of players but stripped out all the social features and progression, you'd likely face a similarly difficult uphill battle to justify that game as an MMORPG. There are expectations of features to be included in an MMORPG, and the number of players you are able to interact with is ONE of those characteristics, but it's not THE defining feature.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
MMO means simply means the ability for the game to be concurrently played by a massive number of people online. There is no requirement beyond that.
For a game to be multiplayer it does have to have the capacity to play along with other players, obviously. That doesn't require that any particular number of players must be able to do so, nor that does it require that they must constantly be able to do so. Nor does it require anyone to choose to interact with other players, regardless of the provided opportunity.
That the cap of Destiny is greater than one in an instance, makes it an MMO. That you may or may not be able to interact with other player outside the instance while in one is totally irrelevant. Nothing about an MMO requires that the opportunity to do so must be a constant.
The use of instances is hardly limited to games of this type, being used in several MMORPGs for dungeons and whatnot, so is no argument against the MMO status of the game.
The ability to meet with 50 people simultaneously isn't an intrinsic requirement for an MMO, simply one that some MMOs have.
Destiny is similar to MMORPGs in some features, but falls short of actually being one... which is why it is an MMO rather than an MMORPG.
I don't need to be helped, especially if that help consists of arbitrary requirements some wish to apply to MMOs that aren't essential elements other than in their own opinion.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Second, most people who mis-label games as an MMO do not understand what an adverb is. I'm glad you do, but so many people on this forum do not understand which is why I repeat it a lot. Most people on this site who misuse the MMO label believe the word "massively" applies to the game as a whole, and not just the multiplayer aspect. This is the primary cause of confusion.
Third, "massive" and it's adverb "massively" have specific meanings. Again, I'm glad you understand them but it is very clear from these forums that a lot of people don't. To call something massive, you are making a comparison to something else. Unless otherwise specified, that comparison is made to other similar things. A massive building is a building that is significantly bigger than other buildings. A massive elephant is an elephant that is significantly bigger than other elephants. So, with MMOs, it can be called massively multiplayer if the multiplayer aspect is significantly bigger than other multiplayer games.
None of this is horrible reasoning. This reasoning is all factual. It is just basic English comprehension. This sort of thing is taught to 12 year olds with no difficulty. I don't know why you are struggling with it. I mean, is something I've written incorrect?
The only thing you can justifiably argue against is that I have not given you a hard number for the average player cap in online multiplayer games. I am afraid I have not had the time to go out, find every single multiplayer game, find the player cap and come up with an average. So, instead I'll just give you some of the most popular, based off Steam's best selling multiplayer games
PUBG - 100
D:OS2 - 4
Spacehulk Deathwing - 4
Rocket League - 8
Battlefleet Gothic Armada - 4
Farming Simulator 17 - 16
GTAV - 32
CS:GO - 64
F1 2017 - 20
Blood Bowl 2 - 2
Rainbow Six Siege - 10
Football Manager 2017 - 22 (couldn't track down specifics, but seeing as max 22 players on the pitch...)
Ark: Survival Evolved - 70 (official, unofficial more)
Total War: Warhammer - 2
The Escapists 2 - 4
XCOM 2 - 4? (again, hard to find specifics)
Mordheim - 2
Rust - 50 (default, can set it as high as you want)
I'm bored, but average number of players from 18 of the top selling multiplayer games on steam is 23.
Lets add in some other games that we know are popular, just not on steam.
DotA2 - 10
LoL - 12 (mostly 10)
Overwatch - 12
Battlefield 1 - 64
Destiny - 16
The Division - 24
Average stays the same.
I could keep going, but what's the point? We both know the results won't change much. It might shrink a bit once you've included every single possible multiplayer online game, or might grow a bit if you weighted the player caps against the popularity of the game.
So, if the average multiplayer online game can only support 23 players within the same virtual environment, can you explain to me how Destiny, which can only support 16, is massively multiplayer? Last time I looked, 16 is less than 23.
What am I getting wrong here? Do you comprehend English differently to me? Do you have a different definition of multiplayer? Is your understanding of maths different? Do we have a different understanding of what it means to be in the same virtual environment? Is it a tech problem, not understanding how virtual environment relates to zones / instances / layers / servers / shards?
I get it when people lack english comprehension
I get when people lack understanding of the technology
I get when people mis-label due to feature comparison
I get when people mis-label for marketing purposes
I get when people mis-label for trolling fun
You don't seem to fall into any of those, which is unique!
/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
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?"
I get your point that they borrow heavily, but it would make Dragon Age: Inquisition an MMORPG as well.
The only thing absurd is the idea that massively multiplayer means exactly the same thing as multiplayer. But hey, thought you didn't care to have this convo?
Sorry, but simply borrowing gameplay mechanics from another genre does not alter the genre you're borrowing from. If you want to get into the grey area, sure.. 16 player caps aren't a grey area.
The vast majority don't post on a discussion forum, either, because they just don't care to discuss topics like this.
@AntiheroD is correct.
I wonder if this debate will last much much longer than the amount of the time i will spend playing Destiny 2.
Here is my question. Will you enjoyment of Destiny 2 changes, if it is classified as a MMO, or not?
The answers should be fun!
My enjoyment would change if it actually was an MMO - I would probably play it if it were an MMO, but because it isn't, I won't.