Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Let's coin a new term

YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593

Single-player Online Role Playing Game = SORPG

I am being serious. There are so many MMORPGs out there which are predominantly single player games being played online. So why not call it what it is?

«1

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,603

    Because they aren't single player games.

    I have a friend who only plays elder scrolls video games. Otherwise he doesn't play video games.

     

    He would be interested in ESO but will not play it because he wants nothing to do with "online people". And given some of the chat out there I can understand why.

    He doesn't want them in his quests, he doesn't want to vie for spawns, he just wants a "single player game".

    And ESO, as much as it fosters solo questing, isn't a single player game.

    So there you go, no new term as of yet.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,346

    SCORPG would be more accurate for describing today's modern MMO, Solo centric online role playing game.

     

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • DamonVileDamonVile Member CommonPosts: 4,818
    People want options but only the options they feel work for them. Everything else ruins the game.
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Single-player Online Role Playing Game = SORPG

    I am being serious. There are so many MMORPGs out there which are predominantly single player games being played online. So why not call it what it is?

    Lets say it stands for "Soloplaying online Roleplaying game" instead and Im in. You don't play it single but you solo all the time.

    We already have massive online roleplaying games and Co-operative online roleplaying game after all and adding a third thing might make things easier to describe the game type.

  • GravargGravarg Member UncommonPosts: 3,424
    I miss the days when you had to rely on other players to get most things done.  You used to hire people to go fell trees for an hour and bring back 1,000 logs so you could make them into shields or walls for a guild house.  You'd hire people to go into the mines and mine for you while you protected them from spiders all all the other creepy crawlies.  You'd hire people to farm so you could bake a wedding cake that people would pay good money for, so they could get married.  You could also do all this yourself.  I miss the days when you would spend an hour or two farming materials.  Then another hour turning them into items that would spend another hour turning into items you could sell and use.  ESO kind of went with this, but there still isn't much interaction between players, since materials are so easy to get and making things don't take that many items.
  • iixviiiixiixviiiix Member RarePosts: 2,131

    Just call them Online Role Playing Game ORPG.

    But wait ... why i have to online to play RPG what don't even have multiplayers option ?

    Servers full with lag and disconnect then in nice day the company close the game server and i can't play it again .

     

    What the **** happen to this age ?

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,346
    Originally posted by Gravarg
    I miss the days when you had to rely on other players to get most things done.  You used to hire people to go fell trees for an hour and bring back 1,000 logs so you could make them into shields or walls for a guild house.  You'd hire people to go into the mines and mine for you while you protected them from spiders all all the other creepy crawlies.  You'd hire people to farm so you could bake a wedding cake that people would pay good money for, so they could get married.  You could also do all this yourself.  I miss the days when you would spend an hour or two farming materials.  Then another hour turning them into items that would spend another hour turning into items you could sell and use.  ESO kind of went with this, but there still isn't much interaction between players, since materials are so easy to get and making things don't take that many items.

    Well you can still get that feeling in ArcheAge, in fact, that's how I do it.  I gather materials and turn them all over to guild crafters and farmers who do the work and supply my gear and stuff.

    With PVP in warzones and what not, having friends or hiring folks to watch your back is also viable.

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    SCORPG would be more accurate for describing today's modern MMO, Solo centric online role playing game.

     

    ONly a select few MMO's were ever not just that.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • Eir_SEir_S Member UncommonPosts: 4,623
    Let's not.
  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by DMKano

    We need another acronym as much as we need another reboot of The Hulk movie.

     

     

    imageimage

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • BeelzebobbieBeelzebobbie Member UncommonPosts: 430

    how about if we call them mmorpg since tthey are still online games were you can play with 100s of players the only difference is that they are made more casual so more people can play them without being online for 8 hours a day for a couple of years and can still play the entire game. 

    I like the way mmos have developed and you are still forced to group with people all the time but in different ways. 

    I play GW2, easily one of the most casual mmos out there and I like it. I can play with my kids and girlfriend even if they aren't that good. I can play ever once in a while and still do end game stuff without being on some idiotic raid schedual on mondays, thursdays and sundays and if I ain't there first choice then maybe I won't even get to play. I don't miss these things at all, it makes the games feel more like a job then fun. 

    Now in GW2 you don't need to be in a group to do stuff all the time and sure this is true but then you are still grouping even when you are alone fighting a world boss, it's not like you can kill it yourselves, the grouping is just easier and more casual. 

    I love this game style, now don't get me wrong I am in a guild and we do lots of stuff together all the time but sometimes I enjoy to play alone and I can do both in GW2.

    Now I am not saying that this is the way it should be for every game cause that would be stupid, I am saying that this is the way I prefer it. 

    I also agree with all of you who wants something else cause the industry have focused to much on casual and this is sad for all of you out there who want's something else. 

    I wish they could make more games with different game styles insteed of always going for the "wining formula of WOW"

    Archage could be for all of you.....

  • rodingorodingo Member RarePosts: 2,870
    Originally posted by Beelzebobbie

    how about if we call them mmorpg since tthey are still online games were you can play with 100s of players the only difference is that they are made more casual so more people can play them without being online for 8 hours a day for a couple of years and can still play the entire game. 

    I like the way mmos have developed and you are still forced to group with people all the time but in different ways. 

    I play GW2, easily one of the most casual mmos out there and I like it. I can play with my kids and girlfriend even if they aren't that good. I can play ever once in a while and still do end game stuff without being on some idiotic raid schedual on mondays, thursdays and sundays and if I ain't there first choice then maybe I won't even get to play. I don't miss these things at all, it makes the games feel more like a job then fun. 

    Now in GW2 you don't need to be in a group to do stuff all the time and sure this is true but then you are still grouping even when you are alone fighting a world boss, it's not like you can kill it yourselves, the grouping is just easier and more casual. 

    I love this game style, now don't get me wrong I am in a guild and we do lots of stuff together all the time but sometimes I enjoy to play alone and I can do both in GW2.

    Now I am not saying that this is the way it should be for every game cause that would be stupid, I am saying that this is the way I prefer it. 

    I also agree with all of you who wants something else cause the industry have focused to much on casual and this is sad for all of you out there who want's something else. 

    I wish they could make more games with different game styles insteed of always going for the "wining formula of WOW"

    Archage could be for all of you.....

    This. ^

    Since the genre was never called GOORPG (group only online role playing game) then why should the acronym be pigeonholed into something that has the word "solo" in it?  MMORPG  works just fine.

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Eir_S
    Let's not.

    I agree.

     

    OP, do you really think it would improve your situation in any way?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,774
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Single-player Online Role Playing Game = SORPG

    I am being serious. There are so many MMORPGs out there which are predominantly single player games being played online. So why not call it what it is?

    Because of convenience? If most MMORPGs are SORPGs ... then it makes  no difference at all.

     

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,590

    Well since the genre started extremely solo friendly, and more mmo's were very solo friendly then not at first, and today more games are solo friendly than not, it seems to me that the EQ style game of must/should group is the outlier and not what MMO's were about.

    Therefore if there is a need for a new acronym it should be Group Centric Online RPG.

    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • MMOExposedMMOExposed Member RarePosts: 7,113

    I can see the scam written all over this.

     

    RPG Developers make single player RPG like Skyrim, but put a Online Always requirement on the game like Blizzard did to Diablo 3, and then start calling your game a SCORPG-MMO

     

    And then shorting it to MMORPG, and start misinforming consumers to get more sales. aka Exploiting.

    image

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,298

    NFGMMORPG

    Non Forced Grouping MMORPG.

    Not being forced to group doesn't make a game solo.

    Neither UO nor AC1 required grouping, yet they were very social games. It's EQ and its clones which introduced forced grouping.

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Intel Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER EVO 8GB DDR6 - RAM: 32GB Kingston HyperX Predator DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Samsung U32J590 32" 4K monitor - Second display: Philips 273v 27" monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset - Sound: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.


  • JemcrystalJemcrystal Member UncommonPosts: 1,939
    I have a fantasy about making a game that satisfies everyone's needs simply by including every possibility.  I'm tired of either or.  Either or is everyone saying their way of playing is the right way and your way is the wrong way.  One person wants more solo content while another person yells the game doesn't force players to communicate enough.  If I built a game it would have massive zones and each zone would have a different set of "rules."  One zone would favor solo players, one community orientated players, one zone for pvp, another for pve, etc etc etc.  Before you say "servers" I don't like them.  People can't choose one and stay with it they keep asking to be transferred.  I call it "the grass is greener on the other side" syndrome.  


  • pkpkpkpkpkpk Member UncommonPosts: 236

    Most people already shorten it to MMO, which stands for . . . Massively Multiplayer Online, which is gibberish. I think the removal of the role-playing part is the most telling. You no longer play a role; it is simply a game. Nothing better exemplifies this than instances, which violate the laws of space and time, just so that you can kill identical monsters as other ostensible heroes are doing it. I am now a level 60 Death Knight Lord . . . make way for the Lich King . . . which 100 other level 60 Death Knight Lords are killing at the same time . . .

    It is a lot like restaurants. If one opens up and serves healthful food that tastes alright but is not going to give you diabetes or make you obese, but another opens up down the street with food that tastes great (to a certain palette) but has a pound of butter and oil in it, the majority is going to go to that one.

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Member UncommonPosts: 2,433

    They're not single players.

    Aside from that little fact though, I do agree that reviewers in particular should mention whether a game is hub-based with instanced zones or not. It's also fairly significant to note how easy it is to group up with others and generally experience the content together in an MMO. Something which hasn't been valued enough recently.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,774
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    I can see the scam written all over this.

     

    RPG Developers make single player RPG like Skyrim, but put a Online Always requirement on the game like Blizzard did to Diablo 3, and then start calling your game a SCORPG-MMO

     

    And then shorting it to MMORPG, and start misinforming consumers to get more sales. aka Exploiting.

    Why would they do that when SP RPGs like Skyrim & D3 make a lot more money than 99.99 of the MMORPGs?

    It is the other way around. MMORPG devs want to attract solo players, not the other way around. D3, Skyrim, Mass effect have more than enough business.

     

  • DihoruDihoru Member Posts: 2,731

    What the Hell is wrong with people today? "We dislike people having the option ergo lets make them a box separate from ours so we do not have to deal with them" ? Really? Btw solo-centric, single player, whatever you wanna call it has been possible since at least UO (not very pleasant but possible, EQ also had classes which could do solo work, painful but possible) so please tell me where do people get off ? I get the trend away from naming anything with massive amounts of people but not a massive world an MMO but now you're trying to also say that both those are inconsequential to the definition of an MMO as such?

     

    People who agree with this idea should learn to stop being anti-social asses that cannot accept people with different mentalities than theirs.

    image
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,366
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Because they aren't single player games.

    I have a friend who only plays elder scrolls video games. Otherwise he doesn't play video games.

     

    He would be interested in ESO but will not play it because he wants nothing to do with "online people". And given some of the chat out there I can understand why.

    He doesn't want them in his quests, he doesn't want to vie for spawns, he just wants a "single player game".

    And ESO, as much as it fosters solo questing, isn't a single player game.

    So there you go, no new term as of yet.

     This is /sarcasm...?

     

      If not seriously because you have a friend who doesnt like  online ,The industry shouldnt think about another catergory for the gaming Community , Which the OP has a point , to many of these games anymore feel and play like a single player game ,(so if looks like a duck)... well you know) and i believe you have been around enough to know that , so not sure if this is /sarcasm..

  • DocBrodyDocBrody Member UncommonPosts: 1,926

    if MMO developers were honest about their intentions and target audience they would have coined that term long ago.

     

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    What the Hell is wrong with people today? "We dislike people having the option ergo lets make them a box separate from ours so we do not have to deal with them" ? Really? Btw solo-centric, single player, whatever you wanna call it has been possible since at least UO (not very pleasant but possible, EQ also had classes which could do solo work, painful but possible) so please tell me where do people get off ? I get the trend away from naming anything with massive amounts of people but not a massive world an MMO but now you're trying to also say that both those are inconsequential to the definition of an MMO as such?

     

    People who agree with this idea should learn to stop being anti-social asses that cannot accept people with different mentalities than theirs.

    What I've always found ironic is it's these types of posters who are essentially the hardest people to talk to I've ever seen... hardcore liberals and conservatives offer a better conversation half the time. They have no ability to understand or accept different ideals, yet wonder why they aren't having social experiences in these games. Kinda hard when you think you're above or more important than everyone else.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


Sign In or Register to comment.