Howdy, Stranger!

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

Like It or Not, Destiny 2 is Good for the MMO Genre - Bill Murphy at MMORPG.com

145679

Comments

  • moosecatlolmoosecatlol Member UncommonPosts: 1,509
    I'm probably going to play it.
  • SenanSenan Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Ugh. If games like Destiny are all we have to look forward to in this genre going forward, thank zombie Jesus there are still quite a few quality old school alternatives lingering around (and will likely remain thanks to private servers). I may never need to upgrade my PC again, heh.

    image
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 3,137
    Eva-01 said:
    I have a feeling Destiny 2 is going to be more a lot MMO-ish than the first.
    Its a multiplayer game, releasing on consoles, so I doubt it. The console crowd demand high graphics quality, so I can't see them being able to increase the player count up to MMO levels for Destiny 2. 

    I can imagine Destiny 2 having more RPG features in it than the first, but they'd have to drop their graphics quality down too far to become an actual MMO.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Eva-01 said:
    I have a feeling Destiny 2 is going to be more a lot MMO-ish than the first.
    Its a multiplayer game, releasing on consoles, so I doubt it. The console crowd demand high graphics quality, so I can't see them being able to increase the player count up to MMO levels for Destiny 2. 

    I can imagine Destiny 2 having more RPG features in it than the first, but they'd have to drop their graphics quality down too far to become an actual MMO.

    Ooooo, ouch...... that's not a very flattering characterization of MMOs. You're not wrong, though, MMOs generally look terrible. That being said, hopefully there will be some advancements soon with things like Lumberyard. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 3,137
    CrazKanuk said:
    Eva-01 said:
    I have a feeling Destiny 2 is going to be more a lot MMO-ish than the first.
    Its a multiplayer game, releasing on consoles, so I doubt it. The console crowd demand high graphics quality, so I can't see them being able to increase the player count up to MMO levels for Destiny 2. 

    I can imagine Destiny 2 having more RPG features in it than the first, but they'd have to drop their graphics quality down too far to become an actual MMO.

    Ooooo, ouch...... that's not a very flattering characterization of MMOs. You're not wrong, though, MMOs generally look terrible. That being said, hopefully there will be some advancements soon with things like Lumberyard. 
    Its just a technical limitation. More people on screen = more graphics power required. 

    MMOs are the largest type of multiplayer game, so require the most resources in order to maintain graphics fidelity. Regardless of platform, an MMO will always hit the limit, at which point you either turn down the graphics, accept the lag, or reduce the amount of people. 

    In order for destiny 2 to be considered an MMO, its going to have to increase the player count by a hell of a lot compared to destiny 1, but the xbone / ps4 aren't powerful enough to do that and maintain graphics quality. So, chances are highly likely that bungie will keep the player count low in order to maintain graphics, so it won't be an MMO. 
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited April 2017
    I guess I think it's a lot more interesting whether it's a good game or not, than what genre it belongs to. Destiny was a massive disappointment to me, so I'm not expecting miracles here. That said, I'm happy it's coming to PC.
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Whatever you want to label it, Destiny is multiplayer, it is online and whether you want to believe it or not it is massive. It has millions of players and will gain more with Destiny 2 as the flaws that came with the first destiny were ironed out over the expansions even though some still remained I know but Bungie know what these are and these should not be present in the sequel unless they are completely incompetent which I don't think they are.
    Even the sceptics are keeping an eye on this game just in case they find that Destiny 2 may just be the game they have longed for and the game which is good for the MMO genre not only on the consoles as before which it was, but now for PC which many PC gamers have wanted for the past few years.
    All in all, everyone should be happy, I know most are, I am, are you?
    Massive, in terms of Multiplayer, does not mean what you seem to think it means, just because several million people own a game, and play it, doesn't mean a game is massively multiplayer, otherwise Candy Crush would be an MMO, pretty sure millions of people play that game too.
    The original Destiny was a multiplayer online game, you could group up and play in an instance with a small number of other players, in that sense it was similar to GW1, though honestly GW1 probably allowed for greater player interraction and more players per instance than Destiny allowed for.

    Hopefully Destiny 2 will allow for greater player interraction, being able to communicate with other players is a must have piece of functionality, that was largely missing from Destiny 1, the only way to communicate with other players in Destiny 1, was to form a fire team, and if you had a microphone for your PS4, you could then talk to them, outside of fireteams though there is zero communication, and to form a fireteam, well you needed on PS4 at least, a ps plus subscription etc. it was a deeply flawed system, you need as a minimum a text based system of chatting with other players, if only to give you the ability to form groups in the first place, Destiny 1 did not have this.

    Secondly, more players per instance, even if its just doubling it to 12 or so would be great, one of the reasons Destiny seemed to be so lifeless was the lack of visibility of other players, i don't particularly care if they keep those limitations on the consoles, but for PC at least i'd like to see them really open it up.

    Thirdly, content, content content, when Destiny first launched, it was ridiculously short on content, eventually they released dlc to address this, taken king,  house of wolves etc. but until then, it was barely half a game, hopefully they won't pull a stunt like that again.

    Lastly, it has to be capable of supporting 60 fps, Destiny 1 on console was only 30 fps, and for an action shooter, that isn't enough, on PC it would look and handle particularly bad, so hopefully they won't go the 30 fps route. :o
  • SalmonManSalmonMan Member UncommonPosts: 192
    My fav MMO is diablo 3 tbh.
  • strykr619strykr619 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    MMORPG still trying to push the notion that Destiny is an MMO LOL....
  • TulerezzerTulerezzer Member UncommonPosts: 15
    I still don't see how this "whatever label" game (that doesn't interest me in the least) is going to be good for the actual "MMO" genre. The writer made comparisons to wow and how it messed up the "MMO" industry and the said this is the "wow-of-the-console". The flow chart in my head leads to this being bad for the "sorta-mmo-sorta-fps-sorta-rpg" genre (or whatever you are going to call it now).
    I read the article, not gonna re-read it to parse every minute detail, but I guess I missed something?
  • ShaighShaigh Member EpicPosts: 2,100


    I still don't see how this "whatever label" game (that doesn't interest me in the least) is going to be good for the actual "MMO" genre. The writer made comparisons to wow and how it messed up the "MMO" industry and the said this is the "wow-of-the-console". The flow chart in my head leads to this being bad for the "sorta-mmo-sorta-fps-sorta-rpg" genre (or whatever you are going to call it now).

    I read the article, not gonna re-read it to parse every minute detail, but I guess I missed something?


    You missed the part where it was written by bill murphy who is on a mission of hyping up destiny 2 to be the second coming of wow christ that died today so it can be resurrected as an easter bunny in three days days.
    Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
     I know i did not miss the part BEFORE this site posted it,that the game was not due out until end of year and even beta was due around Aug/SEP.
    So to be hyping up a game not even remotely yet in the stratosphere says one thing....either their team went and partnered with the D2 team or the D2 team came and approached them to get word out.

    Bottom line is you cannot hype something that does not exist yet in the public eye outside of simply being mentioned that it does exist.It would be BLIND hype,likely false hype.
    Obviously mixed emotions,fanbois will ALWAYS hype any game in a series they love while more heart felt reviewers like Angry Joe gave the original two thumbs down but gave a more honest opinion of D2.

    Angry joe basically said,he thinks he will not get a free copy because of his review on D1 and that he is skeptical of D2 until he sees otherwise.However he is not writing the game off because of D1,he simply states that D2 needs to show they learned and improved from D1 mistakes,or what it lacked but should have had.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,734




    Tiller said:






    @SBFord I actually did and he said it was an mmo so what exactly are you talking about? I'm not insulting anything, I'm stating the fact that it is not an mmo which the creators of the game have even said.











    MMORPG



    massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players.







    "mmorpg". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 31 Mar. 2017. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mmorpg>.



    It fits the definition. Your personal opinion of what an MMO is means nothing.






    So Diablo 2 is a MMO?

    Ark a MMO?


    I would not consider a lobby with instances for content a "virtual world" in which you interact with massive numbers of gamers.  The lobbies are merely chat rooms for grabbing groups, with little to no content in themselves and then everyone runs into instances that are single group based and that somehow meets the definition up above?  Where is the virtual world?  They may be massively chatting, but they certainly are not massively playing the content together in a virtual world.  The way I played EQ was not even remotely the same as the way I played GW1 or Diablo III.  Labels are important, they help you identify features that you may or may not like in a game.

    image
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,555


    I still don't see how this "whatever label" game (that doesn't interest me in the least) is going to be good for the actual "MMO" genre. The writer made comparisons to wow and how it messed up the "MMO" industry and the said this is the "wow-of-the-console". The flow chart in my head leads to this being bad for the "sorta-mmo-sorta-fps-sorta-rpg" genre (or whatever you are going to call it now).

    I read the article, not gonna re-read it to parse every minute detail, but I guess I missed something?


    Just the body of it where he went over those point by point.
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,555









    Tiller said:









    @SBFord I actually did and he said it was an mmo so what exactly are you talking about? I'm not insulting anything, I'm stating the fact that it is not an mmo which the creators of the game have even said.
















    MMORPG




    massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players.










    "mmorpg". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 31 Mar. 2017. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mmorpg>.



    It fits the definition. Your personal opinion of what an MMO is means nothing.









    So Diablo 2 is a MMO?


    Ark a MMO?




    I would not consider a lobby with instances for content a "virtual world" in which you interact with massive numbers of gamers.  The lobbies are merely chat rooms for grabbing groups, with little to no content in themselves and then everyone runs into instances that are single group based and that somehow meets the definition up above?  Where is the virtual world?  They may be massively chatting, but they certainly are not massively playing the content together in a virtual world.  The way I played EQ was not even remotely the same as the way I played GW1 or Diablo III.  Labels are important, they help you identify features that you may or may not like in a game.


    The EQ, Lineage, UO, and AC were all radically different and played nothing alike yet they have the same label. The label is good for generalization and nothing more.
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,734

    Torval said:


    CrazKanuk said:
    I'm not saying Destiny is or is not an MMO, BUT Torval has a valid point, too. Also, if we're being fair, I'm not even sure how many players are supported in modern MMOs. Aren't games like ESO, WS, WoW, etc. broken down into instances, zones, shards, etc. all convening in hubs? I could be wrong, that's an actual literal question. 

    From a philosophical question, If Destiny said they supported 1000 players per zone and then load balanced their servers to never put more than 16 per zone, would that make them an MMO? I think it's more than players supported too.


    Zones are persistent and shared by all gamers, instances are solo / group only, reducing the MMO to MO. The massively multiple player to player interaction in a virtual world is greatly reduced in a game with one persistent hub and instances for the rest of the content. The differences in gameplay and player experience of the virtual environment between a game like GW1 and Destiny versus WoW or EQ are vast.



    I don't want games like Destiny to be painted as the new kind of MMO as that diminishes the meaning of the term as well as sets a precedent to the industry to stop catering to the true MMO audience.

    Time. Things change, mature, age, evolve. You can't stop that (outside of a spiritual discussion about time and space -- and we won't go there).

    We, as people, can filter criteria and compartmentalize down to a fine grained detail. Is anyone confusing WoW with Destiny? Although you could argue that the open world in most MMOs is just a larger insignificant lobby for instanced dungeons and raids.

    Maybe MMOs are just big lobbies. I guess size matters more to some than others. ;)


    What matters to me is the way the game plays.  The ability to play content and have others play alongside me or with me or just randomly show up or run by.  It creates a sense of a virtual world in which there is a living community around you beyond the chat window.  Where we interact with each other and the environment in ways that you cannot do in games like Destiny / GW1 / Diablo.  If the genre wants to evolve in some ways, then label it as something else instead of stealing and bastardizing the label we started off with in games like EQ, DAoC and AC.

    image
  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,734

    Torval said:















    Tiller said:












    @SBFord I actually did and he said it was an mmo so what exactly are you talking about? I'm not insulting anything, I'm stating the fact that it is not an mmo which the creators of the game have even said.





















    MMORPG





    massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players.













    "mmorpg". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 31 Mar. 2017. <Dictionary.com http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mmorpg>.



    It fits the definition. Your personal opinion of what an MMO is means nothing.












    So Diablo 2 is a MMO?



    Ark a MMO?






    I would not consider a lobby with instances for content a "virtual world" in which you interact with massive numbers of gamers.  The lobbies are merely chat rooms for grabbing groups, with little to no content in themselves and then everyone runs into instances that are single group based and that somehow meets the definition up above?  Where is the virtual world?  They may be massively chatting, but they certainly are not massively playing the content together in a virtual world.  The way I played EQ was not even remotely the same as the way I played GW1 or Diablo III.  Labels are important, they help you identify features that you may or may not like in a game.




    The EQ, Lineage, UO, and AC were all radically different and played nothing alike yet they have the same label. The label is good for generalization and nothing more.


    Different content and minute differences in game mechanics, but the paradigms were the same.  Persistent virtual worlds where large numbers of players could interact with each other in every zone, through adventuring, trading, buffing, healing, competing for resources, spawns and camps....etc.

    image
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 16,303


    What matters to me is the way the game plays.  The ability to play content and have others play alongside me or with me or just randomly show up or run by.  It creates a sense of a virtual world in which there is a living community around you beyond the chat window.  Where we interact with each other and the environment in ways that you cannot do in games like Destiny / GW1 / Diablo.  If the genre wants to evolve in some ways, then label it as something else instead of stealing and bastardizing the label we started off with in games like EQ, DAoC and AC.


    I agree with both the new label (Shared World is my current favorite if we want to have a more 2017, all-encompassing one) and your comment about chat.

    Chat in most MMOs is actually a detriment to immersion, not just because of its typical non-game related content but because it's not usually implemented in a realistic, proximity-based way.
    "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

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,240
    The MMORPG genre was DEFINED by UO, EQ ,DAOC, AO, AC and a few others ..

      All these games that literally  DEFINED the Genre and industry have one thing in common ..
     
     They all supported Thousands of players at the SAME time in the SAME persistent world ..

      
    Now if these games literrally DEFINED the genre and set the standards
    for what an MMOPRG is .. Why would anyone think Destiny 1 or 2 is an MMO
    ... .. its just not .. its multi player coop game and there is nothing
    wrong with that ..

      But  Destiny 2 will have the same effect on the MMO industry as Destiny 1 did ..

      None , Zero...not a factor just like its predesccessor

      so ....        UO------EQ------DAOC-----AO-----AC-----Destiny

                           one of these things is not like the others ..........Which is it ?
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,555
    Did all those games really define it? Or did UO and their dev(s) define it and others associated themselves with it? I don't recall anyone coining that phrase independently of Garriott and his team.

    Anyway, I like the term shared world. I also look for terms on the game site where they define world persistence. For me personally persistence and how that works is a lot more important than exactly how many people I'll bump into.

    These features are important to me in my main mmos:
    1. Persistent world state.
    2. Open world interaction - as few obvious instances and zones as possible.
    3. Population - not too many or too few. The number I like is something in the mid hundreds with familiar faces. I like to say hi and buff people I know or the random passerby.

    I like other mmos that don't have all those qualities, but they're not likely to be main places I like to hangout in.
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • Kevan_fKevan_f Member UncommonPosts: 65
    seemingly, mmo has become synonym for full-online. It requires no more persistent open world, or huge events.
    imho, it's not the fact it's a mmo or a full-online game the matter.
    It is the quality of a game..and the intrinsic amount of boring grind implied in the "online longevity"
  • GolelornGolelorn Member RarePosts: 1,392
    I really wanted to try Destiny. I dunno if its even on PC... If so, I might. But I did think about buying an Xbox 1 just for Destiny. Then I remembered, I don't even have time to play my favorite PC games. How can I play both? And is it worth 500 bucks. Nope. Anyways, I will definitely try out a PC version.

    @Wizardry, its not Blizzard's fault people tried to steal their idea. In fact, it's pure idiocy to copy a billion dollar company when you don't have a dollar to your name... They will crush you with money and talent.
  • NonderyonNonderyon Member UncommonPosts: 189
    edited April 2017
    This is my honest option: i dont care anymore.

    There is a Warframe, what is do this genre way better, and free.
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor Member RarePosts: 1,097

    SBFord said:



    Just because you and some other mediocre sites feel like it's an mmo doesn't make it one. Bungie has said time after time that it is not an mmo, it just has mmo elements. So why exactly is a non-mmo good for the mmo genre?


    Proving you didn't read the article. Go do that and then present  your arguments instead of insults. :)



    And saying it isnt a rose doesn't make it smell less sweet. :)
  • sdeleon515sdeleon515 Member UncommonPosts: 151

    Wizardry said:

    So we will curb the many complaints about Destiny 1 and hide that behind an argument weather it is mmo or not?



    There is a LOT that goes into game design,it takes a LOT of work to make it really good,so i am not about to start praising any developer until i see what they can do.

    To lay claim Destiny 2 is good for the industry before it is even out is like saying Wow was good for the industry even though it kickstarted nothing but clone after clone after clone.



    It takes a lot of effort to make a game, a JOURNEY,to create lots of systems and scripts the entire way.

    So let's WAIT and see if they can build a game as good as they advertise.


    It's not a case if the game "will be" or "won't be" good, it's basically on the same course right where FF14 was before the dramatic change up on the position of director. What I mean is the problem with Destiny hasn't been polish, game mechanics or even issues with game functionality but has been since the first day how the team seems to have an iron wall from player input as to the game functionality.

    Case in point with Destiny weapon mechanics kept changing and that happens normally as you get more data. But weapon changes got pushed to the point where data was made to reflect only PvP and not PvE which, in turn, made players feel like Bungie was shafting a part of the population that didn't partake any PvP as heavily and shafting the experience of PvE. I have to agree on that part that making overall game changes based on how items perform under PvP instead of both PvP & PvE just irritates players. Add to the top of it that the game mechanics changed where you were almost to where it was when the game first released and you now have to wonder what the point was at all.

    When players complained of little initial content and too little on add-on for the price point and it was getting to be vicious. I understand the developers needs to have autonomy but Bungie lent it itself in Destiny to assuming they did everything right and it was players who needed to play the game according to how they designed it. Used a sniper in PvP? They wanted to end that. Get quick kills in PvP? End that too! Use a class that has some of the best PvP performance? They deemded that it was too powerful as a result and needed to be nerfed!

    The problem of Destiny and Bungie's approach was less about making a game great but how they approached it that simply pissed off players! You don't get chances to generate new goodwill with players and FF14 was one of those rare examples where they went to unbelievable lengths to prove they indeed intended to make it fixable and thus was version 2 born.

    And while I agree Destiny 1 & 2 are multiplayer and online, it probably shouldn't be considered an mmo; it doesn't really have persistent universe per say as add on content is what moves the universe forward and that'd be no different than none mmo games like Skyrim and Fallout where an addon changes how things worked a bit before. Add to it that you're typically talking about 6 ppl in a party and that's kind of it; it's not massive at all at that stage!

    MMO's have dungeons, raids and endgame content involving more than 6 ppl and, if we honestly think hard, 6 ppl should NEVER equal mmo when that's how Destiny typically works and is featured as realistically. Likewise having social hub where you get all the players to just store gear and buy something shouldn't make it an mmo; we may as well make old AOL chatrooms an MMO on that basis.
Sign In or Register to comment.