Some things are not open to interpretation but people still try and do so.
What do you mean by "try"? Websites, reviewers, devs and superdata did so. They did not try. They did it out right.
Sure you can insist that it is "not open to interpretation". Obviously you are being ignored by websites, reviewers, devs and superdata. So they are changing the interpretation.
But that time elephant wasn't established as being elephant yet. If they established that big thing as a duck, I would clearly be running away. lol
I thought we were talking about MMOs not MMORPGs?
Right, but you're coming into that analogy much later. There, as here, MMO was an established genre distinct from other genres (namely, regular multiplayer games). The confusion has not been ongoing since the birth of the genre. That's happened only recently.
To go back to the animal analogy, it'd be like a circus coming along decades later, teaching ducks tricks and plastering "Elephant Show!" on all their marketing posters because they are teaching the ducks the same tricks another circus taught elephants before they created their act.
I'm not coming to any analogy much later. I've always felt this way from the beginning. Do I get what you guys talk about when you say MMO? Sure, but I always felt it could be broader. You guys seem to be stuck with MMO's = MMORPG's.
So you are stuck with Ducks and Elephants being similar enough to be undecided on running or standing still during a stampede...50% chance you are going to look foolish...or be dead.
And while games are not life and death, it takes about as much effort to learn the distinction between an MMORPG and a game of chess as it does to know the difference between a Duck and an Elephant.
Me, I would rather learn the difference so I don't run when Ducks attack or stand still when it is an Elephant.
And to your point. MMO signifies the delivery mechanism. The problem here is Solo or number restricted play is the Duck, Massively Multiplayer Online is the Elephant and there are still people who can't tell the difference.
Forget it, don't think you or anyone else is getting my point even though i get yours. Have a nice day.
That proves my point on decision making gameplay not being the single-most factor on a person's entertainment as you are saying there are factors outweighing that mechanic.
So you proved my point.
That was NOT your point. And i quote, you said "Entertainment is, in fact, a myriad of factors that all tend to be equally important. "
"all tend to be equally important" is not the same as "not being the single-most factor".
Don't tell me you cannot tell the difference. Changing your point when you are losing an argument, uh?
I understand.
Equally important to you and equally important to design and structure is not the same things. You are not the center of the universe.
You are, however, evidence of the other statement I made in the post you quoted only part of;
"pattern mastery or "kfun" is not the standalone commonality of enjoyable games."
You quoting only part of my post and part of the points I made does not make a valid argument. You proved my point addressing what I quoted and you have not refuted the other aspect that you quoted.
Next time try reading the posts you are responding to before you make mistakes this big.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I wonder what this site's game list would look like if we could filter out games that didn't allow at least 500+ players on screen, or in the same area.
Also, CORPG is a useful term.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The numbers debate doesn't really apply here, because the two sides aren't arguing over numbers, but about an expanded definition that includes multiplayer games (such as MOBAs) that absolutely everyone can agree does not have a massive amount of players interacting within the same game world in any sense.
.. actually it is even more fun.
I am not arguing that we should expand the definition. I am merely pointing out that the definition has been expanded by websites, reviewers and (drum roll) superdata. Is anyone seriously disputing this fact? (if so, i can pull up links again ... or laugh at those who cannot google).
So now if we all agree on the facts, we can debate why, and whether anyone can do anything about it.
Bolded bit is what I disagree with. Websites, reviewers and superdata have not "expanded" the definition, they have misused the definition.
So, I agree it has been widely misused (though, I don't think it has been misused by devs, they usually try to avoid the MMO label)
I have opinions on why it is misused (marketting, traffic, better graphs)
I doubt anyone can do anything about it in general, I just feel that we ourselves can stop misusing it, at least on these forums.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
Just assume it no longer means massively but just massive.
I just assume it means "minimally", more often accurate than not.
I assume it can mean any one of those three and read further about the game. How many people play together? What is the server structure like? How many people am I going to see in a given server/phase/instance etc.?
Some games I may want to see tons of others at once, but mostly overcrowding in a game really detracts from overall immersion. It's why I like "megaservers" like ESO, GW2, and Neverwinter that use phasing. They can control how many people see each other at once. Cities can be more crowded, but adventuring areas less so.
I dunno, if I want to recreate "the Battle of Helms Deep" I think I want hundreds if not thousands of players on the field.
That's what I call immersion, your mileage may vary.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
multiplayer game - lobbied/matches less than 500 on a batttle instance(definition of massively)
mmo - persistent world with option of having over 500+ on a server it can have fewer but that doesnt take away the fact the game has the capabilities. its not going to rebrand as mmo later because some ppl hopped aboard.
It all comes down to how much you think massively is.
The only clear defining lines i can make is if its lobbied/matches like an fps with LESS than a significant amount of ppl its just an online multiplayer fps. If it is set up to experience the game with A LOT of people thats mmo.
But that time elephant wasn't established as being elephant yet. If they established that big thing as a duck, I would clearly be running away. lol
I thought we were talking about MMOs not MMORPGs?
Right, but you're coming into that analogy much later. There, as here, MMO was an established genre distinct from other genres (namely, regular multiplayer games). The confusion has not been ongoing since the birth of the genre. That's happened only recently.
To go back to the animal analogy, it'd be like a circus coming along decades later, teaching ducks tricks and plastering "Elephant Show!" on all their marketing posters because they are teaching the ducks the same tricks another circus taught elephants before they created their act.
Here we see elephants performing a difficult synchronized swimming move:
What do you think we're actually seeing here. I think many people would say they are duck diving for food. But they could be loons. They could be in another bird family that aren't actually ducks. Is calling them ducks misleading? Would mis-calling them loons confuse someone who thinks of them as ducks?
What we don't have in this picture is enough information to, with absolute certainty, call them anything at all. Look at all the different kinds of waterbirds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bird
The analogy doesn't hold true because elephants and ducks are nothing alike, while all the waterfowl (different types of online multiplayer games) do share similarities. The problem is that all these waterfowl games do share similarities, but aren't alike. No one has come up with a better broad description so the slogan "MMO" has been co-opted because there hasn't been a better alternative. People want a term they can use to refer to the broader online multiplayer set of games. You're not going to stop them from using MMO until you provide something else.
The better alternative is very simple and actually requires one less letter, MO. Why the reluctance to just call them Multiplayer Online and be done with it?
It's asinine to throw the adjective massively around for games that have no such support for no particular reason other than verbal laziness and marketing. The excuse for doing so is instancing but that's also pretty lame.
It's like calling everyone tall whether they are or not. A short person standing on a chair is still not tall even if the tall person is also standing on a chair.
And BTW, whatever those are in the water, they're not elephants.
"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
But that time elephant wasn't established as being elephant yet. If they established that big thing as a duck, I would clearly be running away. lol
I thought we were talking about MMOs not MMORPGs?
Right, but you're coming into that analogy much later. There, as here, MMO was an established genre distinct from other genres (namely, regular multiplayer games). The confusion has not been ongoing since the birth of the genre. That's happened only recently.
To go back to the animal analogy, it'd be like a circus coming along decades later, teaching ducks tricks and plastering "Elephant Show!" on all their marketing posters because they are teaching the ducks the same tricks another circus taught elephants before they created their act.
Here we see elephants performing a difficult synchronized swimming move:
What do you think we're actually seeing here. I think many people would say they are duck diving for food. But they could be loons. They could be in another bird family that aren't actually ducks. Is calling them ducks misleading? Would mis-calling them loons confuse someone who thinks of them as ducks?
What we don't have in this picture is enough information to, with absolute certainty, call them anything at all. Look at all the different kinds of waterbirds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bird
The analogy doesn't hold true because elephants and ducks are nothing alike, while all the waterfowl (different types of online multiplayer games) do share similarities. The problem is that all these waterfowl games do share similarities, but aren't alike. No one has come up with a better broad description so the slogan "MMO" has been co-opted because there hasn't been a better alternative. People want a term they can use to refer to the broader online multiplayer set of games. You're not going to stop them from using MMO until you provide something else.
While you make good points Torval, I'd call the difference between MOBAs and MMOs more akin to the difference between a duck and an elephant than a duck and a loon. If not an elephant, at least an ostrich.
No matter how you like it. Megaservers are the future of the mmorpg. They are designed to pool players together and limit the number. So oldschool they would have 100 players in a certain zone spread out over 10 servers. Now they pool all of the 100 players and put them together in that zone. So overall you see more players. You just don't see 1k players all at once. I mean honestly when there is 1k players in a zone then how will anyone have mobs to kill or nodes to farm? If you make the zones huge like mortal online then the hardware demand is too high. So smaller zones like GW2 or ESO and pooling players together without making it too much so they can run into each other without getting in each other's way. GW2 and ESO have perfected this idea and when you look its really good and works well.
The better alternative is very simple and actually requires one less letter, MO. Why the reluctance to just call them Multiplayer Online and be done with it?
That .. you have to ask website operators, reviewers, and superdata. No one here is reluctance to do anything.
If you get the whole industry to change the label, i will be the first to point out, and follow suit.
In fact, I would suggest you start with The Division. Didn't the dev say that it is a MMO and many here cried bloody murder? When you get the dev to publically call TD a MO, let me know.
No matter how you like it. Megaservers are the future of the mmorpg. They are designed to pool players together and limit the number. So oldschool they would have 100 players in a certain zone spread out over 10 servers. Now they pool all of the 100 players and put them together in that zone. So overall you see more players. You just don't see 1k players all at once. I mean honestly when there is 1k players in a zone then how will anyone have mobs to kill or nodes to farm? If you make the zones huge like mortal online then the hardware demand is too high. So smaller zones like GW2 or ESO and pooling players together without making it too much so they can run into each other without getting in each other's way. GW2 and ESO have perfected this idea and when you look its really good and works well.
I'm sorry but i can't hold back to use this
Megaservers or what ever it called will never work . If it happen then they better make loopy games instead of waste money on MMO
Also , stop the "everyone are winners" there always win and lost in game . By "not enough XX for everyone, i want me right now" mean you just need to go back and play instances loopy game (like most of players did) .
In first place , for the players that "i want the pie right now", they don't need megaserver . As i said , loopy game and instance are enough .
The better alternative is very simple and actually requires one less letter, MO. Why the reluctance to just call them Multiplayer Online and be done with it?
That .. you have to ask website operators, reviewers, and superdata. No one here is reluctance to do anything.
If you get the whole industry to change the label, i will be the first to point out, and follow suit.
In fact, I would suggest you start with The Division. Didn't the dev say that it is a MMO and many here cried bloody murder? When you get the dev to publically call TD a MO, let me know.
So you want me to get the spin doctors to stop spinning? OK, I'll get right on that.
"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
Also , stop the "everyone are winners" there always win and lost in game . By "not enough XX for everyone, i want me right now" mean you just need to go back and play instances loopy game (like most of players did) .
In first place , for the players that "i want the pie right now", they don't need megaserver . As i said , loopy game and instance are enough .
He's not arguing that everyone is a winner.
He's arguing that the game is fun for everyone.
A player isn't necessarily better off if they can enjoy games where fun is rare or nonexistent. That's just having low standards.
There's a certain bliss to being able to enjoy living in a mud hut, sure, but there's no reason people can't strive for better than that.
Personally I think the best benefit to megaservers is it handles player decline better (player decline is a universal reality, that's important.) So if a game has grouping (and MMORPGs do) you don't end up in a situation where there aren't enough inhabitants on the island to support life (which hastens player decline.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The better alternative is very simple and actually requires one less letter, MO. Why the reluctance to just call them Multiplayer Online and be done with it?
That .. you have to ask website operators, reviewers, and superdata. No one here is reluctance to do anything.
If you get the whole industry to change the label, i will be the first to point out, and follow suit.
In fact, I would suggest you start with The Division. Didn't the dev say that it is a MMO and many here cried bloody murder? When you get the dev to publically call TD a MO, let me know.
So you want me to get the spin doctors to stop spinning? OK, I'll get right on that.
No .. i don't want you to do anything. I am just saying if you want to change MMO to MO, you need to get the spin doctors on board.
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
If doublespeak didn't have the ability to fool some of the people some of the time it wouldn't be so frequently used in politics and advertising.
Embracing it and championing it? Now that's just glorifying one's own foolishness.
"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
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
If doublespeak didn't have the ability to fool some of the people some of the time it wouldn't be so frequently used in politics and advertising.
Embracing it and championing it? Now that's just glorifying one's own foolishness.
Beautiful response and very well put.
"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
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
If doublespeak didn't have the ability to fool some of the people some of the time it wouldn't be so frequently used in politics and advertising.
Embracing it and championing it? Now that's just glorifying one's own foolishness.
Nah .. just glorifying how much MMO has evolved into something broadened and more people can enjoy. Isn't that worth some embracing?
That's like saying humans can evolve into chimps. You see, chimps already exist and so do non-MMO multiplayer online games. If anything, MMOs evolved from MOs a couple of decades back.
Don't confuse a chimp wearing a three piece suit with a human - it's still a chimp.
"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
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
If doublespeak didn't have the ability to fool some of the people some of the time it wouldn't be so frequently used in politics and advertising.
Embracing it and championing it? Now that's just glorifying one's own foolishness.
Nah .. just glorifying how much MMO has evolved into something broadened and more people can enjoy. Isn't that worth some embracing?
That's like saying humans can evolve into chimps. You see, chimps already exist and so do non-MMO multiplayer online games. If anything, MMOs evolved from MOs a couple of decades back.
Don't confuse a chimp wearing a three piece suit with a human - it's still a chimp.
You're going to spoil his whole night with these on fire posts.
"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
Comments
You are, however, evidence of the other statement I made in the post you quoted only part of;
"pattern mastery or "kfun" is not the standalone commonality of enjoyable games."
You quoting only part of my post and part of the points I made does not make a valid argument. You proved my point addressing what I quoted and you have not refuted the other aspect that you quoted.
Next time try reading the posts you are responding to before you make mistakes this big.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Also, CORPG is a useful term.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Bolded bit is what I disagree with. Websites, reviewers and superdata have not "expanded" the definition, they have misused the definition.
So, I agree it has been widely misused (though, I don't think it has been misused by devs, they usually try to avoid the MMO label)
I have opinions on why it is misused (marketting, traffic, better graphs)
I doubt anyone can do anything about it in general, I just feel that we ourselves can stop misusing it, at least on these forums.
But you make a good point, the actual number of "MMOs" historically might be quite small, with most titles not really qualifying.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
I dunno, if I want to recreate "the Battle of Helms Deep" I think I want hundreds if not thousands of players on the field.
That's what I call immersion, your mileage may vary.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
mmo - persistent world with option of having over 500+ on a server it can have fewer but that doesnt take away the fact the game has the capabilities. its not going to rebrand as mmo later because some ppl hopped aboard.
It all comes down to how much you think massively is.
The only clear defining lines i can make is if its lobbied/matches like an fps with LESS than a significant amount of ppl its just an online multiplayer fps.
If it is set up to experience the game with A LOT of people thats mmo.
Just about every single MMO or "MMO" since WoW (and including WoW) is only partially massively.
It's not about the number of players, it's about the public/open vs. private/match-made or "dedicated" play spaces.
Open/public = massively. Simple as that.
It's asinine to throw the adjective massively around for games that have no such support for no particular reason other than verbal laziness and marketing. The excuse for doing so is instancing but that's also pretty lame.
It's like calling everyone tall whether they are or not. A short person standing on a chair is still not tall even if the tall person is also standing on a chair.
And BTW, whatever those are in the water, they're not elephants.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
For discussion yes. They are not the same thing.
If you get the whole industry to change the label, i will be the first to point out, and follow suit.
In fact, I would suggest you start with The Division. Didn't the dev say that it is a MMO and many here cried bloody murder? When you get the dev to publically call TD a MO, let me know.
Megaservers or what ever it called will never work . If it happen then they better make loopy games instead of waste money on MMO
Also , stop the "everyone are winners" there always win and lost in game . By "not enough XX for everyone, i want me right now" mean you just need to go back and play instances loopy game (like most of players did) .
In first place , for the players that "i want the pie right now", they don't need megaserver . As i said , loopy game and instance are enough .
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
He's arguing that the game is fun for everyone.
A player isn't necessarily better off if they can enjoy games where fun is rare or nonexistent. That's just having low standards.
There's a certain bliss to being able to enjoy living in a mud hut, sure, but there's no reason people can't strive for better than that.
Personally I think the best benefit to megaservers is it handles player decline better (player decline is a universal reality, that's important.) So if a game has grouping (and MMORPGs do) you don't end up in a situation where there aren't enough inhabitants on the island to support life (which hastens player decline.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And whether you want to do that is up to you. Meanwhile, we use MMO as just online games. It is not like people are not doing that already.
what do you mean it will never work.
Didn't cross realm work as advertised on WoW?
Didn't match making work as advertised in The Division?
Just call loopy games MMOs. Problem solved.
Embracing it and championing it? Now that's just glorifying one's own foolishness.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
"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
Don't confuse a chimp wearing a three piece suit with a human - it's still a chimp.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"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