Perhaps this site could do with more open-minded fans who are willing to expand their gaming horizons? No?
This has nothing to do with being willing to expand gaming horzions.
"MMO" has a meaning.
Here's my article. It's a list of the Top 2 Green Cars I found in 30 secs of google image searching:
Nobody's implying you'd be wrong to dislike the car on the right. We're only saying it's very obviously not green.
Impressive and surprising; I disagree with you vehemently on a few fronts, yet when it come to the fundamentals you are dead on. Without question "MMO" has meaning. Respect.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I like the fact that they report on games outside the MMO genre. It expands my horizons!
Me too. Let's just not call them all MMOs.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by lugal Mmo= massive multiplayer online. What part of Destiny or The Crew not massive? Not multiplayer? Not online? The terns used continue to evolve. There is no set size to determine what is massive, so many online games are now mmo's, whether we as players agree or not. Online games now need proper suffix's to identify the game, mmofps, mmosprpg, mmorpg. Etc etc. What this site is doing is fine by me and I support the broader use of mmo for this site. For we have fewer sites to browse these days.
Exactly.
It never ceases to amaze me how often peoples opinions are attacked for the simple reason of attracting more negative debate. The writer had an opinion that was well thought out and constructive. No-one is forcing you to agree or even click on the article. There is nothing constructive with making narrow vitriolic statements.
Personally I enjoyed reading the article and even learned of a new game (The Crew) that I had never heard of. I did not agree with everything but as I had nothing constructive to add or debate I didn't waste my time with a reply.
I seriously doubt any part of that article was written with advertisers in mind. It was simply one guys take on a subject relevant to this website.
Del Cabon A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
Perhaps this site could do with more open-minded fans who are willing to expand their gaming horizons? No?
T
OR this site could ask it's writers to not be so biased and not to just write positive spins all the time?
It really has nothing to do with the content on the site it is how it is presented and that is what the OP is talking about.
The advertising policies also are worth squat when writers are contracted to write articles,meaning they don't directly work for mmorpg but indirectly work for them.You can make claims of proper ethics but unless you are the writer yourself,you cannot make those claims.EVERY single writer knows how this site makes money and how they themselves make money.
The one poster pretty much summed it up when saying that the term mmo and rpg doesn't mean anything anymore.There is no law against what each person perceives as a mmo or a rpg,however logic and common sense would tell us what those two terms stand for and no, WIKI does not have a say.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
I think your absolutely correct, i think some people are under the impression that the first M in MMO means massive and is related to the size of the game, when it is in fact Massively and is solely related to the number of players able to play the game together at any one time, a lot of multiplayer games are limited to about 64 players, others significantly less, these are not games that fall into the category of being a Massively Multiplayer game, which should be able to support 100's of players simultaneously in the same gameworld. Games like The Crew and Destiny actually support barely half a dozen, and are really just lobby based Multiplayer games, a prime example of such being Counterstrike and BF3 etc. although to be fair, both Counterstrike and BF3 support far more simultaneous players than either The Crew, or in fact Destiny, yet is anyone claiming either Counterstrike or BF3 is an MMO?
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
There's hardly ever 100 players near each other in most MMOs, unless there's some huge even going on. Even in the massively popular WoW your probably lucky to have more than 1000 players on a server at any given time, and they're split between two factions and multiple continents. If those 1000 players tried to get near enough to one another to where you could actually tell that your playing with hundreds of others they'd probably crash the server, as often happens during large events.
I'd be surprised if, on average, an MMO players sees close to 100 unique individuals in a normal 2-3 hour session. Most of the time the only way that anyone is interacting with the massive amount of players on the server is through chat, something that you can do in any lobby based game. There might be thousands of players logged in, but if you can't see them, and are only communicating through text, then they may as well not even be in the same world.
You might have a massive amount of people logged onto a server, but all of them are either playing solo, or in small groups, or in instances with the majority of them barely crossing paths and not interacting with each other in any more meaningful way than chat. How is that really any different than other multiplayer games, especially games like Destiny or The Crew?
Planetside and Planetside 2 are about the only two games that I can think of that come close to what your talking about. I guess an argument could be made for DAOC, GW2 and ESO's RvR. Even then it's not like massive battles are taking place all the time, it's often just 20 or 40 man battles.
Have to disagree, either you play on some really empty MMO's or you just don't notice other players, i know for sure that i often encounter hundreds of other players in FFXIV;ARR every few minutes, particularly in the towns, especially during prime time (where i still have to join a queue to enter the game), as for your server estimates, 1000 is way too low, the true figure is probably at least 3x that figure, as for the size of the battles, most MMO's are not PVP focused, but even among those that are, such as ESO, hundreds of players fighting in the same area at the same time is not unreasonable, i'd also be curious to know how many players are in any one area of Archeage at any one time, should they choose to fight etc (if they aren't already that is ), but even in FFXIV;ARR where there are often 'fates' taking place, dozens of players often take part, but they do not represent all the players in the area, other players are around doing their own thing, questing, gathering, crafting even, spend an evening on Odin sometime and you can be sure you find people crafting in the oddest places.
The trouble is, your arguments in favour of The Crew and Destiny, are wholly reliant on your somehow minimising the true values attributed to Massively Multiplayer Games, and somehow multiplying those attributed to both Destiny and The Crew, far beyond what they are actually capable of achieving, but none of your arguments so far would lead me to believe that gap has been closed in any meaningful way
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
There's hardly ever 100 players near each other in most MMOs, unless there's some huge even going on. Even in the massively popular WoW your probably lucky to have more than 1000 players on a server at any given time, and they're split between two factions and multiple continents. If those 1000 players tried to get near enough to one another to where you could actually tell that your playing with hundreds of others they'd probably crash the server, as often happens during large events.
I'd be surprised if, on average, an MMO players sees close to 100 unique individuals in a normal 2-3 hour session. Most of the time the only way that anyone is interacting with the massive amount of players on the server is through chat, something that you can do in any lobby based game. There might be thousands of players logged in, but if you can't see them, and are only communicating through text, then they may as well not even be in the same world.
You might have a massive amount of people logged onto a server, but all of them are either playing solo, or in small groups, or in instances with the majority of them barely crossing paths and not interacting with each other in any more meaningful way than chat. How is that really any different than other multiplayer games, especially games like Destiny or The Crew?
Planetside and Planetside 2 are about the only two games that I can think of that come close to what your talking about. I guess an argument could be made for DAOC, GW2 and ESO's RvR. Even then it's not like massive battles are taking place all the time, it's often just 20 or 40 man battles.
Have to disagree, either you play on some really empty MMO's or you just don't notice other players, i know for sure that i often encounter hundreds of other players in FFXIV;ARR every few minutes, particularly in the towns, especially during prime time (where i still have to join a queue to enter the game), as for your server estimates, 1000 is way too low, the true figure is probably at least 3x that figure, as for the size of the battles, most MMO's are not PVP focused, but even among those that are, such as ESO, hundreds of players fighting in the same area at the same time is not unreasonable, i'd also be curious to know how many players are in any one area of Archeage at any one time, should they choose to fight etc (if they aren't already that is ), but even in FFXIV;ARR where there are often 'fates' taking place, dozens of players often take part, but they do not represent all the players in the area, other players are around doing their own thing, questing, gathering, crafting even, spend an evening on Odin sometime and you can be sure you find people crafting in the oddest places.
The trouble is, your arguments in favour of The Crew and Destiny, are wholly reliant on your somehow minimising the true values attributed to Massively Multiplayer Games, and somehow multiplying those attributed to both Destiny and The Crew, far beyond what they are actually capable of achieving, but none of your arguments so far would lead me to believe that gap has been closed in any meaningful way
Oh yeah, afking in hubs, pinnacle of MMOs!
And games where pinnacle are instances of 4(ish)-20(ish) people arent massive in any way.
whoopsie, that means all of standard themepark "MMOs" (aka EQ/WoW clones including FFXIV) dont qualify.
So yeah we truly DO need more writers that know what MMO is.
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
There's hardly ever 100 players near each other in most MMOs, unless there's some huge even going on. Even in the massively popular WoW your probably lucky to have more than 1000 players on a server at any given time, and they're split between two factions and multiple continents. If those 1000 players tried to get near enough to one another to where you could actually tell that your playing with hundreds of others they'd probably crash the server, as often happens during large events.
I'd be surprised if, on average, an MMO players sees close to 100 unique individuals in a normal 2-3 hour session. Most of the time the only way that anyone is interacting with the massive amount of players on the server is through chat, something that you can do in any lobby based game. There might be thousands of players logged in, but if you can't see them, and are only communicating through text, then they may as well not even be in the same world.
You might have a massive amount of people logged onto a server, but all of them are either playing solo, or in small groups, or in instances with the majority of them barely crossing paths and not interacting with each other in any more meaningful way than chat. How is that really any different than other multiplayer games, especially games like Destiny or The Crew?
Planetside and Planetside 2 are about the only two games that I can think of that come close to what your talking about. I guess an argument could be made for DAOC, GW2 and ESO's RvR. Even then it's not like massive battles are taking place all the time, it's often just 20 or 40 man battles.
That maybe so but for a game to be called an MMO the potential for a massively large number of players to be in the game world at the same place needs to be there. Otherwise it's not an MMO.
What you're saying just means that players use some MMOs as if they were small or large multiplayer online games. That still doesn't mean that we might as well call the games that limit you to playing the way some players play MMOs an MMO.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Perhaps this site could do with more open-minded fans who are willing to expand their gaming horizons? No?
Why would anyone who wanted news on a variety of genres ever use this site? especially when alternatives like Ten Ton Hammer or Gamebreaker, both of which cater specifically to a variety of genres, offer superior content on a daily basis.
Half of the "writers" here are barely able to form coherent paragraphs or utilize a spellchecker. There is so much content here that gets pushed to the front page without ever being looked at by an editor that it is absolutely disgusting. Nevermind the constant, consistent errors in grammar and sentence structure, spelling, etc...
If I wanted to see amateur writers trying to make a name for themselves I would visit any of the thousands of blogs that are available to do so.
I agree with you 100%! The only thing this site was ever good for was the forums, but since they brought in the "Nazi Moderators from Hell" even that fun is gone. They should realize that MMORPG gamers love to complain and argue, no point in censorship and overzealous moderation.
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
There's hardly ever 100 players near each other in most MMOs, unless there's some huge even going on. Even in the massively popular WoW your probably lucky to have more than 1000 players on a server at any given time, and they're split between two factions and multiple continents. If those 1000 players tried to get near enough to one another to where you could actually tell that your playing with hundreds of others they'd probably crash the server, as often happens during large events.
I'd be surprised if, on average, an MMO players sees close to 100 unique individuals in a normal 2-3 hour session. Most of the time the only way that anyone is interacting with the massive amount of players on the server is through chat, something that you can do in any lobby based game. There might be thousands of players logged in, but if you can't see them, and are only communicating through text, then they may as well not even be in the same world.
You might have a massive amount of people logged onto a server, but all of them are either playing solo, or in small groups, or in instances with the majority of them barely crossing paths and not interacting with each other in any more meaningful way than chat. How is that really any different than other multiplayer games, especially games like Destiny or The Crew?
Planetside and Planetside 2 are about the only two games that I can think of that come close to what your talking about. I guess an argument could be made for DAOC, GW2 and ESO's RvR. Even then it's not like massive battles are taking place all the time, it's often just 20 or 40 man battles.
That maybe so but for a game to be called an MMO the potential for a massively large number of players to be in the game world at the same place needs to be there. Otherwise it's not an MMO.
What you're saying just means that players use some MMOs as if they were small or large multiplayer online games. That still doesn't mean that we might as well call the games that limit you to playing the way some players play MMOs an MMO.
Players use them that way because thats realy only way to use them.
Even "old school" relied mostly on small group coop play with occasional need for more players.
Which is very easy to do in "other" mentioned games. In fact, in those "other" mentioned games it would be much eaiser to produce quality content of that kind. Just from the bare fact theres a huge unused landmass that had to be made and spent vast majority resources on in "other other" games.
Look, this horse is beyond dead. It's not even a corpse any more, it's just a red stain on the ground at this point.
Not everybody shares the same idea of what an MMO is. Personally, I think all five on that list qualify. They allow me to sit down and play a game with hundreds, if not thousands, of players. Obviously, you disagree. That's fine, but kindly stop trying to shove your own definition of what is and is not an MMO down people's throats. Don't like the article? Don't read the bloody thing.
A developer would have to be crazy to make an MMO today. Even the definition of the term is nitpicked half to death by the player base. Sheesh.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Comments
This has nothing to do with being willing to expand gaming horzions.
"MMO" has a meaning.
Here's my article. It's a list of the Top 2 Green Cars I found in 30 secs of google image searching:
Nobody's implying you'd be wrong to dislike the car on the right. We're only saying it's very obviously not green.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Impressive and surprising; I disagree with you vehemently on a few fronts, yet when it come to the fundamentals you are dead on. Without question "MMO" has meaning. Respect.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
This site does not care what is or is not an MMO any more.
All they care to do is pander to any company willing to buy ad space here.
It is not any more complicated than that.
o.O
Whatever dude
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
I like the fact that they report on games outside the MMO genre. It expands my horizons!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Me too. Let's just not call them all MMOs.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Write like the wind, OP!
By that, I mean stop bitching about what the sitefolk are doing and show them something they can publish. You might be surprised.
These forums need members who play MMOs.
Exactly.
It never ceases to amaze me how often peoples opinions are attacked for the simple reason of attracting more negative debate. The writer had an opinion that was well thought out and constructive. No-one is forcing you to agree or even click on the article. There is nothing constructive with making narrow vitriolic statements.
Personally I enjoyed reading the article and even learned of a new game (The Crew) that I had never heard of. I did not agree with everything but as I had nothing constructive to add or debate I didn't waste my time with a reply.
I seriously doubt any part of that article was written with advertisers in mind. It was simply one guys take on a subject relevant to this website.
Del Cabon
A US Army ('Just Cause') Vet and MMORPG Native formerly of Trinsic, Norath and Dereth. Currently playing LOTRO.
And it doesn't matter what the devs call their game. They are just looking to differentiate it.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Sinister Savant MMORPG Community
OR this site could ask it's writers to not be so biased and not to just write positive spins all the time?
It really has nothing to do with the content on the site it is how it is presented and that is what the OP is talking about.
The advertising policies also are worth squat when writers are contracted to write articles,meaning they don't directly work for mmorpg but indirectly work for them.You can make claims of proper ethics but unless you are the writer yourself,you cannot make those claims.EVERY single writer knows how this site makes money and how they themselves make money.
The one poster pretty much summed it up when saying that the term mmo and rpg doesn't mean anything anymore.There is no law against what each person perceives as a mmo or a rpg,however logic and common sense would tell us what those two terms stand for and no, WIKI does not have a say.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It can definitely do without posters who obviously havent read the thread they're answering to.
Calling an apple an egg is NOT an expansion of anyones horizont. Its simply just an error.
No wonder we keep having these debates when so many can't tell the difference between "massive multi-player" and the correct words that MM stands for, "massively multi-player."
Massively multi-player describes the genre as requiring many, many, many players playing in the game world simultaneously to qualify. It does not mean 4 nor 8 nor 20 nor 40... it means many more than that can be online and in the same spot interacting with each other.
And the fact that in real MMOs there are also instances limited to 4 or 5 or 20 does not mean that other games that have a maximum limit of 20 or 40 playing concurrently in the same place interacting with each other qualify. Not even if you have 10,000 siting in a virtual lobby somewhere waiting to be matched-up for a game.
I'd be OK with stretching massively multiplayer to a game that limits concurrence in a zone or part of a zone to 100 due to server load architecture and/or phasing structure. But 20 or even 40 don't cut it as far as I'm concerned - it just doesn't fit the definition of massively multi-player,
Call them small multiplayer (SMO) or large multiplayer (LMO) games but to be a real MMO I draw the line at 100. All MO games are not MMOs.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think your absolutely correct, i think some people are under the impression that the first M in MMO means massive and is related to the size of the game, when it is in fact Massively and is solely related to the number of players able to play the game together at any one time, a lot of multiplayer games are limited to about 64 players, others significantly less, these are not games that fall into the category of being a Massively Multiplayer game, which should be able to support 100's of players simultaneously in the same gameworld. Games like The Crew and Destiny actually support barely half a dozen, and are really just lobby based Multiplayer games, a prime example of such being Counterstrike and BF3 etc. although to be fair, both Counterstrike and BF3 support far more simultaneous players than either The Crew, or in fact Destiny, yet is anyone claiming either Counterstrike or BF3 is an MMO?
Have to disagree, either you play on some really empty MMO's or you just don't notice other players, i know for sure that i often encounter hundreds of other players in FFXIV;ARR every few minutes, particularly in the towns, especially during prime time (where i still have to join a queue to enter the game), as for your server estimates, 1000 is way too low, the true figure is probably at least 3x that figure, as for the size of the battles, most MMO's are not PVP focused, but even among those that are, such as ESO, hundreds of players fighting in the same area at the same time is not unreasonable, i'd also be curious to know how many players are in any one area of Archeage at any one time, should they choose to fight etc (if they aren't already that is ), but even in FFXIV;ARR where there are often 'fates' taking place, dozens of players often take part, but they do not represent all the players in the area, other players are around doing their own thing, questing, gathering, crafting even, spend an evening on Odin sometime and you can be sure you find people crafting in the oddest places.
The trouble is, your arguments in favour of The Crew and Destiny, are wholly reliant on your somehow minimising the true values attributed to Massively Multiplayer Games, and somehow multiplying those attributed to both Destiny and The Crew, far beyond what they are actually capable of achieving, but none of your arguments so far would lead me to believe that gap has been closed in any meaningful way
Oh yeah, afking in hubs, pinnacle of MMOs!
And games where pinnacle are instances of 4(ish)-20(ish) people arent massive in any way.
whoopsie, that means all of standard themepark "MMOs" (aka EQ/WoW clones including FFXIV) dont qualify.
So yeah we truly DO need more writers that know what MMO is.
That maybe so but for a game to be called an MMO the potential for a massively large number of players to be in the game world at the same place needs to be there. Otherwise it's not an MMO.
What you're saying just means that players use some MMOs as if they were small or large multiplayer online games. That still doesn't mean that we might as well call the games that limit you to playing the way some players play MMOs an MMO.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I agree with you 100%! The only thing this site was ever good for was the forums, but since they brought in the "Nazi Moderators from Hell" even that fun is gone. They should realize that MMORPG gamers love to complain and argue, no point in censorship and overzealous moderation.
Players use them that way because thats realy only way to use them.
Even "old school" relied mostly on small group coop play with occasional need for more players.
Which is very easy to do in "other" mentioned games. In fact, in those "other" mentioned games it would be much eaiser to produce quality content of that kind. Just from the bare fact theres a huge unused landmass that had to be made and spent vast majority resources on in "other other" games.
Sigh...
Look, this horse is beyond dead. It's not even a corpse any more, it's just a red stain on the ground at this point.
Not everybody shares the same idea of what an MMO is. Personally, I think all five on that list qualify. They allow me to sit down and play a game with hundreds, if not thousands, of players. Obviously, you disagree. That's fine, but kindly stop trying to shove your own definition of what is and is not an MMO down people's throats. Don't like the article? Don't read the bloody thing.
A developer would have to be crazy to make an MMO today. Even the definition of the term is nitpicked half to death by the player base. Sheesh.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Potato, Potato Tomato, Tomato
Yea this conversation is pointless.