Howdy, Stranger!

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

Okay WTF is a MMO? Really?

189101214

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    DMKano said:
    This question is IMO irrelevant, who cares anymore? The whole subject of defining a MMO has become really blurred.

    So, I wouldn't worry about it. If you think it's an MMO and someone tells you it's not - let it be. It's not worth wasting the energy to argue over it.

    Are you having fun playing it? 

    That's a lot more relevant.


    The reason some people insist on this definition is because that's the type of game they want to play, and by changing that definition they fear their favorite genre is getting eliminated altogether. 
    Most likely this.


    Some of us just don't see a point in rendering a term meaningless.  The entire reason it was coined was to distinguish a specific type of game from others in a specific way.  When it fails to do that any longer, it's no longer useful.

    If MMO is just multiplayer, then there's no reason to use MMO anymore, is there?
    But language changes. I'm not really sure why people have a hard time with this. 

    It's either because they are only really aware of what has gone on within their own lives and have no real clue as to what has happened in the span of human history or they are scared that if the things they know of can change then nothing is certain and that is very uncomfortable.

    You have no control of what will be rendered meaningless or not.

    Given your moniker you of all people should be aware of the French Government's strict language laws precisely because they are aware how language changes and how words from other languages can seep into and change language.

    There is a very real reason why "etymology" is a thing.

    Well, except for those on this forum who were never aware of it.
    And, in this instance, folks have decided the term means nothing more than multiplayer.


    Where did I say language doesn't change?
    You seem to imply it with the statement referring to making the term meaningless.

    It doesn't become meaningless. It does take on new meanings. You say that the word was coined to refer to a specific type of game. And now, due to the magic of the human race, it will have new meanings going forward.

    There is a very real reason why getting through an original copy of Shakespeare's first folio is challenging for me.  B)
    Read my edit.

    It means the same as a term we already have.  No need to use it at all, then.  So I won't.  Feel free to do so, but don't get annoyed when I ask you to be more specific.
    Not annoyed at all. I already explained myself. You made a statement that seemed to imply a thing.

    And it doesn't necessarily mean "nothing more than multiplayer." Multiplayer could just be two people. 

    It DOES seem to mean that a massive amount of people access the game at the same time with the possibility of interacting.

    All of this just seems like a temper tantrum. "we already have a word and if it doesn't mean what it should then don't use it!!!!" *stomps out of the room and sulks on bed while watching dawson's creek and eating Hagen Daz*

    In seriousness I'm sure you aren't all that upset about it but all of this arguing of what mmorpg seems like a tempest in a teapot.

    It doesn't matter what people think, what will happen with the term will happen. That's it. And if it does change then when the people who hated the change die off then there will be no more arguing about it.


    klash2def



  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,595
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    DMKano said:
    This question is IMO irrelevant, who cares anymore? The whole subject of defining a MMO has become really blurred.

    So, I wouldn't worry about it. If you think it's an MMO and someone tells you it's not - let it be. It's not worth wasting the energy to argue over it.

    Are you having fun playing it? 

    That's a lot more relevant.


    The reason some people insist on this definition is because that's the type of game they want to play, and by changing that definition they fear their favorite genre is getting eliminated altogether. 
    Most likely this.


    Some of us just don't see a point in rendering a term meaningless.  The entire reason it was coined was to distinguish a specific type of game from others in a specific way.  When it fails to do that any longer, it's no longer useful.

    If MMO is just multiplayer, then there's no reason to use MMO anymore, is there?
    But language changes. I'm not really sure why people have a hard time with this. 

    It's either because they are only really aware of what has gone on within their own lives and have no real clue as to what has happened in the span of human history or they are scared that if the things they know of can change then nothing is certain and that is very uncomfortable.

    You have no control of what will be rendered meaningless or not.

    Given your moniker you of all people should be aware of the French Government's strict language laws precisely because they are aware how language changes and how words from other languages can seep into and change language.

    There is a very real reason why "etymology" is a thing.

    Well, except for those on this forum who were never aware of it.
    And, in this instance, folks have decided the term means nothing more than multiplayer.


    Where did I say language doesn't change?
    You seem to imply it with the statement referring to making the term meaningless.

    It doesn't become meaningless. It does take on new meanings. You say that the word was coined to refer to a specific type of game. And now, due to the magic of the human race, it will have new meanings going forward.

    There is a very real reason why getting through an original copy of Shakespeare's first folio is challenging for me.  B)
    Read my edit.

    It means the same as a term we already have.  No need to use it at all, then.  So I won't.  Feel free to do so, but don't get annoyed when I ask you to be more specific.
    Not annoyed at all. I already explained myself. You made a statement that seemed to imply a thing.

    And it doesn't necessarily mean "nothing more than multiplayer." Multiplayer could just be two people. 

    It DOES seem to mean that a massive amount of people access the game at the same time with the possibility of interacting.

    All of this just seems like a temper tantrum. "we already have a word and if it doesn't mean what it should then don't use it!!!!" *stomps out of the room and sulks on bed while watching dawson's creek and eating Hagen Daz*

    In seriousness I'm sure you aren't all that upset about it but all of this arguing of what mmorpg seems like a tempest in a teapot.

    It doesn't matter what people think, what will happen with the term will happen. That's it. And if it does change then when the people who hated the change die off then there will be no more arguing about it.



    SteelhelmVermillion_Raventhal
    "PSA: We live in a multicultural world. Nobody is "forcing" diversity. Earth is already Diverse."

    "Everything that happens is a political act, and the only people that get to pretend otherwise are those privileged enough to not have politics impact them at all." ~Taliesin

    "Fear is the most dangerous power"
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    DMKano said:
    This question is IMO irrelevant, who cares anymore? The whole subject of defining a MMO has become really blurred.

    So, I wouldn't worry about it. If you think it's an MMO and someone tells you it's not - let it be. It's not worth wasting the energy to argue over it.

    Are you having fun playing it? 

    That's a lot more relevant.


    The reason some people insist on this definition is because that's the type of game they want to play, and by changing that definition they fear their favorite genre is getting eliminated altogether. 
    Most likely this.


    Some of us just don't see a point in rendering a term meaningless.  The entire reason it was coined was to distinguish a specific type of game from others in a specific way.  When it fails to do that any longer, it's no longer useful.

    If MMO is just multiplayer, then there's no reason to use MMO anymore, is there?
    But language changes. I'm not really sure why people have a hard time with this. 

    It's either because they are only really aware of what has gone on within their own lives and have no real clue as to what has happened in the span of human history or they are scared that if the things they know of can change then nothing is certain and that is very uncomfortable.

    You have no control of what will be rendered meaningless or not.

    Given your moniker you of all people should be aware of the French Government's strict language laws precisely because they are aware how language changes and how words from other languages can seep into and change language.

    There is a very real reason why "etymology" is a thing.

    Well, except for those on this forum who were never aware of it.
    And, in this instance, folks have decided the term means nothing more than multiplayer.


    Where did I say language doesn't change?
    You seem to imply it with the statement referring to making the term meaningless.

    It doesn't become meaningless. It does take on new meanings. You say that the word was coined to refer to a specific type of game. And now, due to the magic of the human race, it will have new meanings going forward.

    There is a very real reason why getting through an original copy of Shakespeare's first folio is challenging for me.  B)
    Read my edit.

    It means the same as a term we already have.  No need to use it at all, then.  So I won't.  Feel free to do so, but don't get annoyed when I ask you to be more specific.
    Not annoyed at all. I already explained myself. You made a statement that seemed to imply a thing.

    And it doesn't necessarily mean "nothing more than multiplayer." Multiplayer could just be two people. 

    It DOES seem to mean that a massive amount of people access the game at the same time with the possibility of interacting.

    All of this just seems like a temper tantrum. "we already have a word and if it doesn't mean what it should then don't use it!!!!" *stomps out of the room and sulks on bed while watching dawson's creek and eating Hagen Daz*

    In seriousness I'm sure you aren't all that upset about it but all of this arguing of what mmorpg seems like a tempest in a teapot.

    It doesn't matter what people think, what will happen with the term will happen. That's it. And if it does change then when the people who hated the change die off then there will be no more arguing about it.


    So, again, online poker is an MMO, because a massive amount of folks access the game and can interact.  Battlefield?  MMO.  Call of Duty?  MMO.  Yet even folks advocating this evolution fall silent when you try to get them to acknowledge this.


    It's almost like trying to change the definition to one's personal desires leads to a blurry definition that causes confusion.  Specifically when it's used as a term separate from multiplayer despite those same advocated claiming it means just that.  Funny, that.
    OG_Zorvanklash2def

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    And the silence...  Is deafening.

    image
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,595
    "PSA: We live in a multicultural world. Nobody is "forcing" diversity. Earth is already Diverse."

    "Everything that happens is a political act, and the only people that get to pretend otherwise are those privileged enough to not have politics impact them at all." ~Taliesin

    "Fear is the most dangerous power"
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,692
    edited June 2019
    Different perspectives. 

    For Group A MMO is an initialization and is defined as a virtual world housing a large population. Massively means a lot to them; both in terms of the amount people can play together in a single instance and the world's size. Mechanics have no role in it. (Size does matter!) @MadFrenchie always a pleasure! ;)

    MMO isn't an initialization for Group B, but a genre name. They define this genre by certain characteristics and mechanics. Population has no role in it. (Size does not matter!)

    The eternal conflict between Group A and Group B has no end. It is the matter of perspective. I by no means imply that all ideas possess the same value. When it comes to Music, me and my mates have been arguing for 25 years about the differences of 'The Berlin School of Electronic Music' and 'Ambient Music' and 'Kraut Rock'. Bands have their own definitions. Critics have their own definitions. And the battle continues. 

    As @Sovrath pointed out my old comment, Group A is facing a tragedy. We all hoped a series of Kickstarters could revived that old concept. It seems we need to wait at least a couple of more years. 
    klash2defMadFrenchie
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Different perspectives. 

    For Group A MMO is an initialization and is defined as a virtual world housing a large population. Massively means a lot to them; both in terms of the amount people can play together in a single instance and the world's size. Mechanics have no role in it. (Size does matter!) @MadFrenchie always a pleasure! ;)

    MMO isn't an initialization for Group B, but a genre name. They define this genre by certain characteristics and mechanics. Population has no role in it. (Size does not matter!)

    The eternal conflict between Group A and Group B has no end. It is the matter of perspective. I by no means imply that all ideas possess the same value. When it comes to Music, me and my mates have been arguing for 25 years about the differences of 'The Berlin School of Electronic Music' and 'Ambient Music' and 'Kraut Rock'. Bands have their own definitions. Critics have their own definitions. And the battle continues. 

    As @Sovrath pointed out my old comment, Group A is facing a tragedy. We all hoped a series of Kickstarters could revived that old concept. It seems we need to wait at least a couple of more years. 
    Maybe splitting hairs considering the point of your post, but the "fall" of MMORPGs isn't the motivator for me.  Clear language is.  Consistency is.  Both are lacking in group B.

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    klash2defAmathe



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).

    When you say, "this is a multiplayer game," we both know what you're saying.  When you say "This is an MMO" we don't.  Even those who agree with "evolution" don't, because they each have their own "version" of the evolution they think is correct, and that's because this evolution wasn't natural, but was brought on artificially by marketing.
    Amathe

    image
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,398
    edited June 2019
    We need new words. I think we have gotten all the mileage out of "mmorpg" (coined in 1997) we are ever going to get. Much has changed since then and is still changing.

    Try:

    MMCSPG   Massively Multiplayer Cash Shop Purchasing Game

    MESG        Massively Easy Soloing Game

    NSMSTPPG  Not So Massively Small Team Pew Pew Game

    AFBRG        Another F'ing Battle Royale Game

    CPAPTBAG     Cell Phone App Pretending To Be A Game

    TSWNGRBSUM   This Shit Will Never Get Released But Send Us Money
    ConstantineMerusMadFrenchielaseritSteelhelmMisterZebubIselinTheocritusCryomatrix

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    klash2def



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    mmolou

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 



  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,922
    It's all a matter of perception, imo.  You can look at dictionary definitions but everything is open to interpretation.  So ask different sources and you're get different explanations.  Society as a whole can't agree on one thing 100%.  Every person, business, organization has their own interpretation based on their past experience and current agenda.  Looking for universal absolute definitions just ends in running around in circles. 
    Sovrath

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
    I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.

    I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.

    And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.




  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,152
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
    I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.

    I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.

    And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.

    Gay use to mean happy.
    Sovrath
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
    I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.

    I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.

    And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.

    Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".

    Ambiguous communication neither creates fun nor avoids rigidity.  Communication itself is a transfer of information, ambiguous information is imprecise information, and that's not a positive.  That's how misinformation gets legitimized.  In fact, case in point: THIS EXACT SITUATION.

    Hell, folks have literally died over miscommunications and ambiguity.  In this specific instance, there's not a good case to be made that we should be ambiguous. We're discussing communicating clearly to one another and having clear definitions of terms, which needs precision to be clear.

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
    I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.

    I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.

    And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.

    Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".


    Well, you can fight the good fight if you want to but I strongly suspect you are going to die on this hill. Not enough people care, I doubt it's really something careing about, and it's not like we are talking medicine or sending a man to mars.

    It's video games. 

    I would offer that if mmorpg's were huge and there was a constant influx of new games then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there aren't enough games coming to market the term is being used for games that seem "associated" with the term. No surprise there to be honest.



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    And the silence...  Is deafening.
    I do other things as well you know!  ;)

    So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.

    And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."

    Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want. 

    Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it. 

    What does this mean?

    That in a few years online poker will be an mmo! :p
    Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria.  Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions.  Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.

    It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
    Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.

    Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?

    See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!

    That's history!
    I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term. :D

    If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable.  There isn't.  You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same.  That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
    Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.

    Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.

    If said "sourdough" to  you you would say  "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)

    but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.

    I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.

    Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.

    etc, etc.

    You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry. 
    There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage.  Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.


    Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example.  There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
    I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.

    I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.

    And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.

    Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".


    Well, you can fight the good fight if you want to but I strongly suspect you are going to die on this hill. Not enough people care, I doubt it's really something careing about, and it's not like we are talking medicine or sending a man to mars.

    It's video games. 

    I would offer that if mmorpg's were huge and there was a constant influx of new games then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there aren't enough games coming to market the term is being used for games that seem "associated" with the term. No surprise there to be honest.
    We're not fighting fights.  We're posting opinions and stuff on a specific interest forum that happens to be specifically interested with this term.

    I've never understood why folks want to act as if things being discussed aren't worthy of discussion.  If they weren't, the discussion would die.  That's called the free market of ideas in action. :D   But we're all guilty of "why are we discussing this?" on something in our lives.

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    edited June 2019

    I've never understood why folks want to act as if things being discussed aren't worthy of discussion.  If they weren't, the discussion would die.  That's called the free market of ideas in action. :D   But we're all guilty of "why are we discussing this?" on something in our lives.
    I think you are taking that too literally.

    I'm not saying you can't discuss it and I'm certainly not saying we are all fighting.


    I am saying that no matter what people may want as far as this topic is concerned, it's really not going to add up to much for those who want to keep the term "pure."

    Given what we've seen, you just aren't going to get what you want. It's just "not that important."

    I can tell you that when I started playing video games, as an adult, I certainly didn't care what things were called or that there were aspects of one game into others.

    You could have called the original Doom a role playing game and I would have said "sure, great, whatever."

    The term mmorpg (well, it's really an initialism) was coined by a particular person in the industry. Had other types of online games been available at the time he "could" have used it as a blanket term or "could" have even created a different way to explain it all.

    Now that "those" types of games aren't as common developers want to capitalize on mmorpg for their "evolved" games.

    It feels a bit too nerdy to me. I bet if we walked up to joe schmo on the street who played World of Warcraft for a year and told him about the argument that he would shrug his shoulders and say "sure, whatever."

    Even on Steam, when I buy games, I see fps/rpg etc and if the game doesn't look like something I'd like, even though it carries the rpg moniker I just hit "next."






  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Well no, of course not.  But if you walked into Blizzard studios?  Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.

    MMORPG.com is not a street in a city.  It's a specific stop for specific topics.

    image
  • Pher0ciousPher0cious Member RarePosts: 281
    edited June 2019
    Destiny is MMO. 
    3 is massive. 
    Chess players are athletes. 
    Literally means figuratively. 
    Pizza is vegetable. 
    Wyverns are dragons. 
    Pokemon is NOT animal blood sport. 
    The moon is a planet >>> https://youtu.be/8RMOYhpQkzo?t=321


    What is right? What is wrong? Who knows? Who cares? 

    I'm a cyborg! 
    SovrathSteelhelm
    ('''\( ',.:.,' )/''')
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,665
    Well no, of course not.  But if you walked into Blizzard studios?  Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.

    MMORPG.com is not a street in a city.  It's a specific stop for specific topics.
    I bet if I walked into Blizzard Studios I'd get a wide variety of thoughts on what an mmorpg was, what it currently is and what it will someday "be."

    There is a difference between the layman or in this case "the player" having their opinions and the opinions of people who actively engage in the development of video games.

    It reminds me of my freshman year of college where a Masters degree candidate presented a "piece of music."

    I got into a discussion with him saying that " it wasn't music ."

    Well, yadda. yadda, yadda, 8 years of music education later I can say that he was right and it was music. But that took me being exposed to the entirety of known musical knowledge, the evolution of western music and a bit of exposure to eastern music to come to that realization. 

    My perspective had drastically changed and my understanding had significantly broadened. 





  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited June 2019
    Sovrath said:
    Well no, of course not.  But if you walked into Blizzard studios?  Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.

    MMORPG.com is not a street in a city.  It's a specific stop for specific topics.
    I bet if I walked into Blizzard Studios I'd get a wide variety of thoughts on what an mmorpg was, what it currently is and what it will someday "be."

    There is a difference between the layman or in this case "the player" having their opinions and the opinions of people who actively engage in the development of video games.

    It reminds me of my freshman year of college where a Masters degree candidate presented a "piece of music."

    I got into a discussion with him saying that " it wasn't music ."

    Well, yadda. yadda, yadda, 8 years of music education later I can say that he was right and it was music. But that took me being exposed to the entirety of known musical knowledge, the evolution of western music and a bit of exposure to eastern music to come to that realization. 

    My perspective had drastically changed and my understanding had significantly broadened. 


    Agreed, but I don't agree that means anyone should acquiesce the ignorance of the masses who aren't as involved or as knowledgeable about a topic.  Surely anyone who sees what's going on in America right now can agree with that.

    Of course, then you get folks trying to gaslight their own "new" definition as "the" definition, and it's usually replete with ambiguity and inconsistencies.  Such definitions are poor, and aren't necessarily indicative of the way the industry sees it, specifically not at an individual employee level.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.