After doing a bit of research on the definition of Massively Multiplayer, I found this: (from wikipedia.org) Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character (often in a fantasy world),[1] and take control over many of that character's actions.[2] MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game. I looked this up in an attempt to obtain an objective point of view. It is my opinion that STO does not fit into wikipedia's definition of MMO. But, in the end, this truly is a matter of opinion. There is no standard for what is or is not truly MMO, accept for the standard that we ourselves create and accept. My standard for what is MMO may vary greatly from yours. After all is said and done, it is ultimately pointless to argue about opinions. STO doesn't fit into wikipedia's definition of what an MMORPG is. I'll leave it at that.
I came up with this post on the 'what is an MMO' that got in to what is a persistent world, add in to what you posted above:
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent. The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games, including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing the state of the world in the game around the clock. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a persistent world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
In MMORPGs, an instance location is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy, or instance, of the dungeon map for each group, or for certain amount of players, that enters the area. This saves server work and ensures that there will never be competition (kill stealing, spawn camping) over resources such as mobs within the instance.
The difficulty slider is just a silly thing but it really does show the lengths to which this is not a massive multiplayer game happening in a common world but rather a series of small coop or solo elements happening separately and that is the antithesis of an MMORPG by about any definition.
Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site... Game Adjustments: Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us! Some of the few things on the way: * Difficulty Slider Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.
I try not to bash people, I really do. I understand that you, and many others, don't think STO is an MMO and that is fine. Everyone has an opinion about everything and I do my best to respect that. But...
This. Horse. Is. Dead.
Just because the last "this is not an MMO" thread has fallen off the first page doesn't mean it's time to start a new one. When the editors of this site feel the need to post an article about STO not being delisted and how the MMO genre is constantly evolving, that tells me we need to just let it go.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics... "It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim" SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!? It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics... "It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim" SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!? It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there.. The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
After doing a bit of research on the definition of Massively Multiplayer, I found this: (from wikipedia.org) Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a fictional character (often in a fantasy world),[1] and take control over many of that character's actions.[2] MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game. I looked this up in an attempt to obtain an objective point of view. It is my opinion that STO does not fit into wikipedia's definition of MMO. But, in the end, this truly is a matter of opinion. There is no standard for what is or is not truly MMO, accept for the standard that we ourselves create and accept. My standard for what is MMO may vary greatly from yours. After all is said and done, it is ultimately pointless to argue about opinions. STO doesn't fit into wikipedia's definition of what an MMORPG is. I'll leave it at that.
You apparently missed the previous thread where this was debunked.
"Star Trek Online, often abbreviated as STO, is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) developed by Cryptic Studios based on the popular...."
So if you are using wiki as your guide then you agree that STO is an MMORPG.
* Difficulty Slider Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.
Well, even though there may be some WoW haters....heroic difficulty...hard mode...etc...
A difficulty slider on the instance, not on whatever is open to all....
It doesn't really matter what we call the game, it is what it is. The only thing the name does is invoke some expectations. To me, when you say a game is an MMORPG, I think back to DAOC, my first MMORPG game. That implies to me things like harvesting, crafting, large open areas with many people running around, teams and grouping, large raids, defending territory in PvP, persistent effects on the world.
Advertising is the main reason to use a word like MMORPG to describe a game. It sets an expectation; you would not consider online Monopoly to be an MMORPG. This brings up Star Trek. There is a history and philosophy that defines Star Trek. Again, to me, it means exploration, social interaction, and lots of quests with puzzle-type endings. Very very rarely was there any ship combat, and the philosophy is that Man has evolved beyond violence and can solve the problems without fighting. Kirk romances the enemy, Spock's brain is attached to the enemy's ship, the Enterprise stops two planets from warring with each other, but without fighting either of them.
So that leaves me with Star Trek, the MMORPG. It does not have a large open world, it does not have persistent effects, it does not have large numbers of people running around. It also does not follow the Star Trek philosophy; instead, it is a combat game.
My personal expectations were not met, it does not feel like an MMORPG to me, and also does not feel like Star Trek. But that does not actually matter in any objective sense, the game is what it is no matter what I think of it. However, I think there is a little bit of hype going on, the advertising of a Star Trek MMORPG is somewhat misleading IMHO. Sort of like going to see a new Batman movie, and it is really just a movie of Batman playing solitaire.
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics... "It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim" SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!? It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there.. The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
But that's not the point. The point is that calling it an MMORPG or not DOES NOT define it's value. If Civ Revolution is a better value... PLAY IT.
My point is that calling STO a Pink Fruit Basket with Wings and Tutu doesn't change a goddamn thing about it. It is a service provided for a price. Calling a MMORPG never meant they promised you a Sandbox style game, and they never did. Calling it an MMORPG (especially in todays market) never meant they promised you it wouldn't be heavily instanced, and again they never did.
And the fact that some of us happen to enjoy STO for exactly what it is, and consider it worth paying what it costs doesn't mean we have either deep pockets, or parents who buy our games for us. I can assure you I have neither. And I really don't give a shit how you want to genre classify STO. It's completely irrelevant.
Really what are you hoping for here? For Cryptic to suddenly say, "Oh, I guess your right, it's not an MMORPG... therefore in accordance with the unwritten laws of the gaming universe, we are not entitled to charge whatever the fuck we think people will pay for it."
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics... "It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim" SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!? It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there.. The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
But that's not the point. The point is that calling it an MMORPG or not DOES NOT define it's value. If Civ Revolution is a better value... PLAY IT.
My point is that calling STO a Pink Fruit Basket with Wings and Tutu doesn't change a goddamn thing about it. It is a service provided for a price. Calling a MMORPG never meant they promised you a Sandbox style game, and they never did. Calling it an MMORPG (especially in todays market) never meant they promised you it wouldn't be heavily instanced, and again they never did.
And the fact that some of us happen to enjoy STO for exactly what it is, and consider it worth paying what it costs doesn't mean we have either deep pockets, or parents who buy our games for us. I can assure you I have neither. And I really don't give a shit how you want to genre classify STO. It's completely irrelevant.
Really what are you hoping for here? For Cryptic to suddenly say, "Oh, I guess your right, it's not an MMORPG... therefore in accordance with the unwritten laws of the gaming universe, we are not entitled to charge whatever the fuck we think people will pay for it."
That is exactly the point. Calling it an MMO lets Cryptic charge subs. Calling it an MMO defines a value of an extra 15 bucks a month per player on top of the box price. That's a value they wouldn't have had if they'd called it something else.
A given % of players would have given it a shot no matter what. BUT you have to admit a given % of players (thats value) wouldn't have picked it up if it wasn't called and marketed as an MMO.
As much as I've been disappointed in STO, it is an MMO, it's big, it's got lots of players who play online. That's an MMO. Difficulty sliders? Easy for the heavily instanced world of STO. Just find x number of players who want to play in "I have no thumbs mode" and away you go, and for those complaining about the ridiculous ease of progression they can set to "I have no friends, life or mortgage" mode and spend days doing exactly the same stuff as before but with more dying.
You contradict yoruself. It is not big - never in STO will you play with more than 50 people (in social spaces) and in most gameplay situations you will be playing with as few as 5 as a max - this is not massive no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, there is no persistent world, as you acknowledge by the completely instanced 'world )you said heavily, STO is in fact 100% instanced). And as I suggest in the topic, the straw that breaks the camel's back here is the difficulty slider - ability for implementation aside the idea that an MMO has no integrity of the gameplay experience from player to player is untenable - SP and MP COOP games have difficulty sliders, not MMORPGs.
They still call SWG an MMORPG... This has to be one of the most pointless threads I've ever seen. I don't see how a difficulty slider breaks the game? If the game groups you with people of the same "difficulty" then you are still in an online world with other people. This is an MMORPG by all the standard defintions... wikipedia is your friend:
"...MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game."
Ok so the world exists after the player logs out and the game publisher is constantly adding content, or "evolving" the game world. And for good measure here is a definition of "persistant game world:"
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent..."
By these definitions alone, this is an MMORPG... can we lock this thread please? We get that you are unhappy about all the instancing and that this wasn't the game YOU expected, but as Chris Berman would say... "C'mon man!"
Fair opinions from Drakynn and Sovrath, in terms of the box price I would mostly agree I suppose save for the value argument (i.e. there is something to be said about them charging for what most games more like them give away, i.e. Guild Wars). The thread was started more for those who have been arguing all month that STO is indeed an MMORPG and seem incapable of even acknowledging its shortcomings in terms of key elements that make up MMORPGs. My point being that the topic is NOT do you like STO or not - the topic is it simply is not an MMORPG, and perhaps maybe the implication that since it is not an MMORPG there should not be a monthly fee.
I would disagree that something has to be ann MMORPG or even an MMO to be worth a subscription fee but it had best provide something to justify what ever sub fee they are asking e.g regular appropriate content.
I completely agree with this. It matters not if STO can technically be considered an MMO. Heck.... Most the games out that call themselves MMO's can be argued that in truth they aren't. We have always assumed that an MMO had to be like Eq/UO/AC in terms of openability and player interactions. If this is the case wouldn't Farmville be considered an MMO? You can grow your farm in a persistant state that others can come visit to help our just look at anytime. You can go to a central area and chat with everyone sitting around. Here is a quote to consider "69 million active users are using FarmVille alone, that's more users than Twitter." (http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/facebook-farmville-is-bigger-than-twitter-655373). Isn't this an MMO?
Not trying to start a war just want everyone to re-evaluate what could be considered an MMO. In light of this STO could still be considered a MMO, just not in the traditional sense we are used to.
- Case: Thermaltake Kandalf Black Chassis - CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz (OC'd 4.2GHz on Water Cooling) - Memory: Mushkin 8Gb (4x 2Gb) DDR3 1600Mhz - HDD: Dual Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM - GFX: (2) XFX Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire - New upgrade!
"I like wow, I like aion and I like AoC all for different reasons.....the later cause i get to see boobs, but still its a reason!!" - Sawlstone
Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site... Game Adjustments: Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us! Some of the few things on the way: * Difficulty Slider Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.
Guess WoW is no MMO then, Heroic mode? Anarchy Online had mission sliders so you could make missions very hard and complex are real easy find item, ahhh damn another non MMO game then.
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics... "It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim" SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!? It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
That is the crux of it. They are presenting the game as something it is not and as such deserve more harsh criticism for those things it is lacking in as a result. Had they done a Guild Wars and sold the box and then sold content add ons down the road I think many people would be far less critical. But in offering up the game for the same price and as on par with true MMORPGs that have so many things this game doesn't they are bringing on themselves the extraneous criticism. They did the same thing with Champion's Online and it tanked, and it will tank this game too.
The sad thing is if they had the honesty and decency to do something like what Guild Wars did charging just for the box and content expansions or what Global Agenda did altering its pay model then they would have probably gotten a far better reception. Instead, they offered the game up as something it clearly is not and the game is getting poor reception - add to the mix that they are not even getting the content updates out the promised and the game is really shown for what it is, a pretender as an MMORPG and a very incomplete and poorly developed one at that.
Had they done a Guild Wars and sold the box and then sold content add ons down the road I think many people would be far less critical.
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
Had they done a Guild Wars and sold the box and then sold content add ons down the road I think many people would be far less critical.
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
I can't speak for others.. but STO is not on the same level as a traditional $15 a month subscription MMO like WoW, LoTRO, EQ's and CoH... In my opinion, STO is in the same ballpark as DDO and GW and should be priced accordingly.. I wouldn't be critical of a Chevy Chevetted as long as it doesn't price itself to be a Cadilac.. is that better?
its never seen a mmo (massively multiplayer online) its a multiplayer online game and its a disgrace they try calling it one , ive played fps games on bigger servers than what some of the instances hold in sto
Playing: FFXIV Future: wishing for SWG 2, World of Warcraft Classic Played: Most current and extinct MMO's - 18 Years in....
Aside from the obvious - no persistent world, no massiveness in terms of the play spaces size or player counts in areas (including social areas) - consider this tidbit from a recent post on the STO site... Game Adjustments: Now that the game is out and in your loving hands, we're taking long, hard looks at everything each and every one of you is interested in seeing changed. Cruiser turn rates? Death penalties? More open auto-fire? All those topics and more are being scrutinized by the all-seeing eye of... um, us! Some of the few things on the way: * Difficulty Slider Hrm, how can people play at different difficulty levels if it truly is a persistent world and a real MMORPG? Simple answer, the cannot. Only a largely SP/coop type game can afford such a mechanic in terms of balance and even in terms of implementation. Enough with the arguing, this is the icing on the 'not an MMORPG' cake.
Just because it hasn't been done yet dosen't mean it isn't a good idea and shouldn't be done...There was a time when monthly subscription MMOs were unheard of.
And there was a time when computer games where not heard of, but that is not relevant to this discussion so I do not see your point.
You are correct sir and I have drifted off Target.I agree that to my sensibilities STO is not a MMORPG but maybe a Medium-ly Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game at best.I also agree that at the moment STO is not at the same level of service,content and depth as other games asking the same price and subscription fee and in fact not the same level as some cheaper games.
I would agree with others that there is a good base for creating a game that is on the same level but we know that rarely happens after a game has launched.
Sliding difficulty is not necessarily a non-MMO feature... it might be unusual... but I like it to character-level or quest-level systems in 'traditional' or old-school MMOs.
I am hardly surprised that a young, 2 year development, 1 month old MMO-Lite like STO is a very 'non-standard' MMO system to traditionalists.
STO is.. a 'off the shelf' MMO from what I can tell. New, different, not everyone's perference.. however I am definately going to see where this is going before I jump to any conclusions.
I think its fair to judge the game at launch as a 'product' value.. its price.. its subscription vs. value return. Those are all fair game.
I also think its fair to compare STO to other MMO's and point out its shortcommings.
What I don't get is this whole attitude of 'we must prove its not an MMO'. What does that do... how does anyone gain anything by trying to re-classify this game into something else? I highly doubt it will change anything. Players concerns that STO is misleading the MMO public... umm.. the MMO gamer is pretty well educated right now. Most are 'mature' enough to read the box, read forum posts, find a trial (or buddy token) and judge for themselves.
There is a whole dedicated 'review' area on MMORPG.com.. where you can provide your input and move on. No need to dwell on this subject beyond cancelling your subscription or waiting it out.
The general MMO public does not need 'protection' from MMO-Lite games like STO. None of us have any clue what this game will mature into.. if it does or not. Nothing has been written in stone despite what some posters seem to try to portray.
Spending time attempting to gather 'proof' that XXX game is or is not what the developers call it is an exercise in futility. Consder the MMO decription as 'broadening'... or segregating.. into more than 1 narrow vision of what can be called MMO.
Had they done a Guild Wars and sold the box and then sold content add ons down the road I think many people would be far less critical.
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
I can't speak for others.. but STO is not on the same level as a traditional $15 a month subscription MMO like WoW, LoTRO, EQ's and CoH... In my opinion, STO is in the same ballpark as DDO and GW and should be priced accordingly.. I wouldn't be critical of a Chevy Chevetted as long as it doesn't price itself to be a Cadilac.. is that better?
That's fair, but it's also subjective. You stating your completely valid opinion is not the same thing as you attempting to invalidate other equally valid opinions by attempting to paint the arguement as non-subjective which is the entire point of the "STO is not actually an MMORPG" arguement.
Look at it this way: I'd be critical of the Chevette at any price, and I don't think Cadilac is worth what it costs... and neither opinion would be made more valid by my arguing that either car can't really be called an American Sedan.
MMO or MMORPG is a loose definition of a genre of games. If you cant handle it, then lets go even more basic than MMO(an already general term of MMORPG) and call it something spectaculary accurate.
STO is a GMUD
Case Closed.
Difficulty sliders have nothing to do with being an MMO or not. Difficulty options have been in MMOs for a long time now. Just let it go and find something else to rant about.
Comments
I came up with this post on the 'what is an MMO' that got in to what is a persistent world, add in to what you posted above:
Persistent World:
A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent. The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games, including other narrative forms of a media franchise.
The persistence comes from maintaining and developing the state of the world in the game around the clock. Quite unlike other types of games, the plot and events in a persistent world game continue to develop even while some of the players are not playing their characters. That aspect is similar to the real world where events do occur regardless if they are directly or indirectly related to a person, as they continue to happen while a person is asleep, etc. Conversely, a player's character can also influence and change a persistent world. The degree to which a character affects a world varies from game to game. Since the game does not pause or create player-accessible back-up files, a character's actions will have consequences that the player must deal with.
Instanced Dungeon (what all of STO is, a series of instances):
In MMORPGs, an instance location is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy, or instance, of the dungeon map for each group, or for certain amount of players, that enters the area. This saves server work and ensures that there will never be competition (kill stealing, spawn camping) over resources such as mobs within the instance.
The difficulty slider is just a silly thing but it really does show the lengths to which this is not a massive multiplayer game happening in a common world but rather a series of small coop or solo elements happening separately and that is the antithesis of an MMORPG by about any definition.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I try not to bash people, I really do. I understand that you, and many others, don't think STO is an MMO and that is fine. Everyone has an opinion about everything and I do my best to respect that. But...
This. Horse. Is. Dead.
Just because the last "this is not an MMO" thread has fallen off the first page doesn't mean it's time to start a new one. When the editors of this site feel the need to post an article about STO not being delisted and how the MMO genre is constantly evolving, that tells me we need to just let it go.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Another thing...
No unique character naming. I was happy when I found out how to turn off the @name part. I think it is silly that it defaults to on.
Its a little thing but it does bug me and adds to my feeling that STO isn't an MMO. Cryptic did it in CO and I didn't like it there either.
It just adds to the whole feeling that you aren't a unique character in a persistent world.
It's not a bad game, just not worth the subs.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
AND AGAIN with the pointless arguement over semantics...
"It's an MMORPG","It's a multiplayer pay to play space sim"
SERIOUSLY! WHY DOES IT MATTER!?!?!?!?!?!?
It is what it is and cost what it costs. Like it or don't, pay for it or don't. Period. End of discussion.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there..
The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
You apparently missed the previous thread where this was debunked.
Here is what Wikipedia calls STO..
"Star Trek Online, often abbreviated as STO, is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) developed by Cryptic Studios based on the popular...."
So if you are using wiki as your guide then you agree that STO is an MMORPG.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Well, even though there may be some WoW haters....heroic difficulty...hard mode...etc...
A difficulty slider on the instance, not on whatever is open to all....
A rose by any other name ....
It doesn't really matter what we call the game, it is what it is. The only thing the name does is invoke some expectations. To me, when you say a game is an MMORPG, I think back to DAOC, my first MMORPG game. That implies to me things like harvesting, crafting, large open areas with many people running around, teams and grouping, large raids, defending territory in PvP, persistent effects on the world.
Advertising is the main reason to use a word like MMORPG to describe a game. It sets an expectation; you would not consider online Monopoly to be an MMORPG. This brings up Star Trek. There is a history and philosophy that defines Star Trek. Again, to me, it means exploration, social interaction, and lots of quests with puzzle-type endings. Very very rarely was there any ship combat, and the philosophy is that Man has evolved beyond violence and can solve the problems without fighting. Kirk romances the enemy, Spock's brain is attached to the enemy's ship, the Enterprise stops two planets from warring with each other, but without fighting either of them.
So that leaves me with Star Trek, the MMORPG. It does not have a large open world, it does not have persistent effects, it does not have large numbers of people running around. It also does not follow the Star Trek philosophy; instead, it is a combat game.
My personal expectations were not met, it does not feel like an MMORPG to me, and also does not feel like Star Trek. But that does not actually matter in any objective sense, the game is what it is no matter what I think of it. However, I think there is a little bit of hype going on, the advertising of a Star Trek MMORPG is somewhat misleading IMHO. Sort of like going to see a new Batman movie, and it is really just a movie of Batman playing solitaire.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there..
The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
But that's not the point. The point is that calling it an MMORPG or not DOES NOT define it's value. If Civ Revolution is a better value... PLAY IT.
My point is that calling STO a Pink Fruit Basket with Wings and Tutu doesn't change a goddamn thing about it. It is a service provided for a price. Calling a MMORPG never meant they promised you a Sandbox style game, and they never did. Calling it an MMORPG (especially in todays market) never meant they promised you it wouldn't be heavily instanced, and again they never did.
And the fact that some of us happen to enjoy STO for exactly what it is, and consider it worth paying what it costs doesn't mean we have either deep pockets, or parents who buy our games for us. I can assure you I have neither. And I really don't give a shit how you want to genre classify STO. It's completely irrelevant.
Really what are you hoping for here? For Cryptic to suddenly say, "Oh, I guess your right, it's not an MMORPG... therefore in accordance with the unwritten laws of the gaming universe, we are not entitled to charge whatever the fuck we think people will pay for it."
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
Exactly.. I love playing Civilization Revolution online with friends.. It's a hoot.. We play it online with multiple co op playing.. however, I wouldn't pay $15 a month to play it.. And Civ Rev has updates too and addon content as well.. I pay for that, but those are only a couple bucks here and there..
The fad today in game is "lets slap a mmo label to it to get more money".. which a lot of people with deep pockets or parental pockets don't care..
But that's not the point. The point is that calling it an MMORPG or not DOES NOT define it's value. If Civ Revolution is a better value... PLAY IT.
My point is that calling STO a Pink Fruit Basket with Wings and Tutu doesn't change a goddamn thing about it. It is a service provided for a price. Calling a MMORPG never meant they promised you a Sandbox style game, and they never did. Calling it an MMORPG (especially in todays market) never meant they promised you it wouldn't be heavily instanced, and again they never did.
And the fact that some of us happen to enjoy STO for exactly what it is, and consider it worth paying what it costs doesn't mean we have either deep pockets, or parents who buy our games for us. I can assure you I have neither. And I really don't give a shit how you want to genre classify STO. It's completely irrelevant.
Really what are you hoping for here? For Cryptic to suddenly say, "Oh, I guess your right, it's not an MMORPG... therefore in accordance with the unwritten laws of the gaming universe, we are not entitled to charge whatever the fuck we think people will pay for it."
That is exactly the point. Calling it an MMO lets Cryptic charge subs. Calling it an MMO defines a value of an extra 15 bucks a month per player on top of the box price. That's a value they wouldn't have had if they'd called it something else.
A given % of players would have given it a shot no matter what. BUT you have to admit a given % of players (thats value) wouldn't have picked it up if it wasn't called and marketed as an MMO.
It's dead, Jim.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
You contradict yoruself. It is not big - never in STO will you play with more than 50 people (in social spaces) and in most gameplay situations you will be playing with as few as 5 as a max - this is not massive no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, there is no persistent world, as you acknowledge by the completely instanced 'world )you said heavily, STO is in fact 100% instanced). And as I suggest in the topic, the straw that breaks the camel's back here is the difficulty slider - ability for implementation aside the idea that an MMO has no integrity of the gameplay experience from player to player is untenable - SP and MP COOP games have difficulty sliders, not MMORPGs.
They still call SWG an MMORPG... This has to be one of the most pointless threads I've ever seen. I don't see how a difficulty slider breaks the game? If the game groups you with people of the same "difficulty" then you are still in an online world with other people. This is an MMORPG by all the standard defintions... wikipedia is your friend:
"...MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game."
Ok so the world exists after the player logs out and the game publisher is constantly adding content, or "evolving" the game world. And for good measure here is a definition of "persistant game world:"
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent..."
By these definitions alone, this is an MMORPG... can we lock this thread please? We get that you are unhappy about all the instancing and that this wasn't the game YOU expected, but as Chris Berman would say... "C'mon man!"
I would disagree that something has to be ann MMORPG or even an MMO to be worth a subscription fee but it had best provide something to justify what ever sub fee they are asking e.g regular appropriate content.
I completely agree with this. It matters not if STO can technically be considered an MMO. Heck.... Most the games out that call themselves MMO's can be argued that in truth they aren't. We have always assumed that an MMO had to be like Eq/UO/AC in terms of openability and player interactions. If this is the case wouldn't Farmville be considered an MMO? You can grow your farm in a persistant state that others can come visit to help our just look at anytime. You can go to a central area and chat with everyone sitting around. Here is a quote to consider "69 million active users are using FarmVille alone, that's more users than Twitter." (http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/facebook-farmville-is-bigger-than-twitter-655373). Isn't this an MMO?
Not trying to start a war just want everyone to re-evaluate what could be considered an MMO. In light of this STO could still be considered a MMO, just not in the traditional sense we are used to.
- Case: Thermaltake Kandalf Black Chassis
- CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 3.2GHz (OC'd 4.2GHz on Water Cooling)
- Memory: Mushkin 8Gb (4x 2Gb) DDR3 1600Mhz
- HDD: Dual Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM
- GFX: (2) XFX Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire - New upgrade!
"I like wow, I like aion and I like AoC all for different reasons.....the later cause i get to see boobs, but still its a reason!!" - Sawlstone
Guess WoW is no MMO then, Heroic mode? Anarchy Online had mission sliders so you could make missions very hard and complex are real easy find item, ahhh damn another non MMO game then.
It matters if Cryptic is calling it an MMO in order to sell boxes and get subs from people who wouldn't have been willing to for a multiplayer action game.
That is the crux of it. They are presenting the game as something it is not and as such deserve more harsh criticism for those things it is lacking in as a result. Had they done a Guild Wars and sold the box and then sold content add ons down the road I think many people would be far less critical. But in offering up the game for the same price and as on par with true MMORPGs that have so many things this game doesn't they are bringing on themselves the extraneous criticism. They did the same thing with Champion's Online and it tanked, and it will tank this game too.
The sad thing is if they had the honesty and decency to do something like what Guild Wars did charging just for the box and content expansions or what Global Agenda did altering its pay model then they would have probably gotten a far better reception. Instead, they offered the game up as something it clearly is not and the game is getting poor reception - add to the mix that they are not even getting the content updates out the promised and the game is really shown for what it is, a pretender as an MMORPG and a very incomplete and poorly developed one at that.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
I can't speak for others.. but STO is not on the same level as a traditional $15 a month subscription MMO like WoW, LoTRO, EQ's and CoH... In my opinion, STO is in the same ballpark as DDO and GW and should be priced accordingly.. I wouldn't be critical of a Chevy Chevetted as long as it doesn't price itself to be a Cadilac.. is that better?
its never seen a mmo (massively multiplayer online) its a multiplayer online game and its a disgrace they try calling it one , ive played fps games on bigger servers than what some of the instances hold in sto
Playing: FFXIV
Future: wishing for SWG 2, World of Warcraft Classic
Played: Most current and extinct MMO's - 18 Years in....
Interesting Fact - I own 27 Tarantula's
Lawl!!!!
And there was a time when computer games where not heard of, but that is not relevant to this discussion so I do not see your point.
You are correct sir and I have drifted off Target.I agree that to my sensibilities STO is not a MMORPG but maybe a Medium-ly Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game at best.I also agree that at the moment STO is not at the same level of service,content and depth as other games asking the same price and subscription fee and in fact not the same level as some cheaper games.
I would agree with others that there is a good base for creating a game that is on the same level but we know that rarely happens after a game has launched.
Sliding difficulty is not necessarily a non-MMO feature... it might be unusual... but I like it to character-level or quest-level systems in 'traditional' or old-school MMOs.
I am hardly surprised that a young, 2 year development, 1 month old MMO-Lite like STO is a very 'non-standard' MMO system to traditionalists.
STO is.. a 'off the shelf' MMO from what I can tell. New, different, not everyone's perference.. however I am definately going to see where this is going before I jump to any conclusions.
I think its fair to judge the game at launch as a 'product' value.. its price.. its subscription vs. value return. Those are all fair game.
I also think its fair to compare STO to other MMO's and point out its shortcommings.
What I don't get is this whole attitude of 'we must prove its not an MMO'. What does that do... how does anyone gain anything by trying to re-classify this game into something else? I highly doubt it will change anything. Players concerns that STO is misleading the MMO public... umm.. the MMO gamer is pretty well educated right now. Most are 'mature' enough to read the box, read forum posts, find a trial (or buddy token) and judge for themselves.
There is a whole dedicated 'review' area on MMORPG.com.. where you can provide your input and move on. No need to dwell on this subject beyond cancelling your subscription or waiting it out.
The general MMO public does not need 'protection' from MMO-Lite games like STO. None of us have any clue what this game will mature into.. if it does or not. Nothing has been written in stone despite what some posters seem to try to portray.
Spending time attempting to gather 'proof' that XXX game is or is not what the developers call it is an exercise in futility. Consder the MMO decription as 'broadening'... or segregating.. into more than 1 narrow vision of what can be called MMO.
SWG/STO/(SWTOR)
Ok... SO... tell me... is your arguement that if STO did not charge a subscription fee THEN you would consider it a good game, and enjoy playing it?
Are you specifically arguing that STO is worth a amount of money less than what they are charging?
First of all... I'm willing to be you just don't like STO therefore it doesn't really matter to you how much they charge for it, which renders your whole arguement pointless.
Second of all, there are MMORPGs that do fit -YOUR- artificially narrow definition of MMORPG which use all manner of price scheme, so clearly the MMORPG does not suggest a price structure, as your arguing that it does... which also renders your arguement pointless.
So in the end, the arguement over whether it's fair to label STO an MMORPG is pointless semantics used in attempt to objectify the completely subjective arguement as to whether or not STO is worth a box fee for 30 days and a subscription thereafter. I can promise you there are thing you've spent an amount of money that you consider fair, which I'd consider to be a total rip off.
This is of course me assuming you're not seriously trying to argue that someone might see MMORPG on an STO box and actually buy it expecting the game to be something completely diffrent than it is... because frankly that would just be completely stupid, and nothing you or I could say is going to help someone like that.
I can't speak for others.. but STO is not on the same level as a traditional $15 a month subscription MMO like WoW, LoTRO, EQ's and CoH... In my opinion, STO is in the same ballpark as DDO and GW and should be priced accordingly.. I wouldn't be critical of a Chevy Chevetted as long as it doesn't price itself to be a Cadilac.. is that better?
That's fair, but it's also subjective. You stating your completely valid opinion is not the same thing as you attempting to invalidate other equally valid opinions by attempting to paint the arguement as non-subjective which is the entire point of the "STO is not actually an MMORPG" arguement.
Look at it this way: I'd be critical of the Chevette at any price, and I don't think Cadilac is worth what it costs... and neither opinion would be made more valid by my arguing that either car can't really be called an American Sedan.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
Oiy...
This is just sad.
MMO or MMORPG is a loose definition of a genre of games. If you cant handle it, then lets go even more basic than MMO(an already general term of MMORPG) and call it something spectaculary accurate.
STO is a GMUD
Case Closed.
Difficulty sliders have nothing to do with being an MMO or not. Difficulty options have been in MMOs for a long time now. Just let it go and find something else to rant about.