Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fallout 76 is indeed an MMORPG, and it sounds pretty great! - MMORPG.com News

13468913

Comments

  • EggonomiconEggonomicon Member UncommonPosts: 30
    Not like rust at ALL, more like GTA5.

    First off missions, and mobs to kill. Yes there can be pvp like GTA5, but nothing like Rust.
    Torval
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited June 2018
    Krayka said:
    Krayka said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game. 
    It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.  
    They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO. 
    "Hundreds of players"  so which games are mmos today according to you ?   I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.  
    An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
    Says who?  Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s.  I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo.  I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.  
    The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
    There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.

    For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance. 

    Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.  

    100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable. 

    MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them.  There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.

    Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
    I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
    Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online...  there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.

    Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area,  but is it an MMO or is it not?  You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything? 

    It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either.  It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO" 

    Nothing is clearly defined,  so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that. 
    Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.

    Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.

    My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete.  Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.

    Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
    At this point most people that play online games are playing with friends and clans.  The solo players do their own thing but positive interaction in video games with random players is almost none existent today.  

    With matchmaking,  toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players.   We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.

    *Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion .   I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.  


    Actually, the ESA consumer report shows that players coming into the game alone edge out gamers who seem to play with friends in general.  There's still more players buying into multiplayer games to find folks to play with than to enter the game with a preset group of companions.  The percentage of gamers who play with family/friends was just above 40%, actually. EDIT- that also doesn't mean those gamers always play with family/friends.  The data made no distinction there.

    As MMORPGs continue to ignore what makes the genre unique, and instead attempt to circumvent it, the market share as a whole of the industry will only continue to get smaller.

    The one positive thing I'll say for crowdfunding: they seem to be focusing on the genre's strengths, instead of trying to circumvent them.

    image
  • EggonomiconEggonomicon Member UncommonPosts: 30


    It's WAY more than Rust or even Conan. The trailers do a better job explaining it than I can.



    Exactly! Think GTA5, not Rust.
  • KraykaKrayka Member UncommonPosts: 28
    Krayka said:
    Krayka said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game. 
    It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.  
    They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO. 
    "Hundreds of players"  so which games are mmos today according to you ?   I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.  
    An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
    Says who?  Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s.  I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo.  I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.  
    The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
    There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.

    For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance. 

    Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.  

    100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable. 

    MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them.  There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.

    Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
    I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
    Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online...  there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.

    Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area,  but is it an MMO or is it not?  You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything? 

    It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either.  It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO" 

    Nothing is clearly defined,  so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that. 
    Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.

    Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.

    My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete.  Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.

    Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
    At this point most people that play online games are playing with friends and clans.  The solo players do their own thing but positive interaction in video games with random players is almost none existent today.  

    With matchmaking,  toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players.   We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.

    *Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion .   I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.  


    Actually, the ESA consumer report shows that players coming into the game alone edge out gamers who seem to play with friends in general.  There's still more players buying into multiplayer games to find folks to play with than to enter the game with a preset group of companions.  The percentage of gamers who play with family/friends was just above 40%, actually. EDIT- that also doesn't mean those gamers always play with family/friends.  The data made no distinction there.

    As MMORPGs continue to ignore what makes the genre unique, and instead attempt to circumvent it, the market share as a whole of the industry will only continue to get smaller.

    The one positive thing I'll say for crowdfunding: they seem to be focusing on the genre's strengths, instead of trying to circumvent them.
    This is why I’m still playing MMOs of yesteryear. Recently played vanilla WoW on a private server and got a warlock up to level 60 and had an absolute blast doing it! The server I was playing on is releasing a fresh server later this month and I don’t want to level to 60 again so I’m taking a break. Picked up Age of Conan again and have also been having a blast playing it. I’ve had way more fun in these two old games than any new MMO that has come out recently .
    Hariken
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,889
    Not like rust at ALL, more like GTA5.

    First off missions, and mobs to kill. Yes there can be pvp like GTA5, but nothing like Rust.
    Welcome to the boards! If it is more like GTA it would be more MMOish which would be good.
    Kyleran

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,743
    The solo play part I don't understand ... will they allow people to play alone with no interference or do they mean a solo play style where you still can have others destroy what you have built and able to interact with other players.

  • deniterdeniter Member RarePosts: 1,367
    Doesn't sound too shabby, i like a lot of what i just read.

    The only question is Bethesda. They have another Fallout game which isn't Fallout, they have a Doom game which isn't actually Doom, etc. There's a big chance this game will be a copy of one of those survival games, only with FO theme and graphics.
    Hariken
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,824
    So this is considered an MMORPG these days? Cool. 

    You should have seen what we used to call MMORPG 15+ years ago. They were completely different games with layers of complexity these online survival games can only dream of.
    KyleranScotKraykaTacticalZombehOG_Zorvan
  • DaxamarDaxamar Member UncommonPosts: 590
    Im so excited. Cannot wait! To actually play with friends is a great addition.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,007
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:



    Iselin said:

    It's a lot closer to survival games than an MMORPG but it does sound very cool with traditional Fallout story quests built in.

    What Tod Howard said in the presentation tonight that "you can carry your progress to other servers" and "you won't even notice you're in a different server" sounds to me like they'll be using something like a heavily instanced megaserver tech to handle different servers more seamlessly than what is normal in survival games.

    I get what you're saying @BillMurphy, l in that this will be the closest a survival game has ever gotten to a full fledged mmoprg with respect to game play elements, size, quests and scope but I also agree with @blueturtle13 that "dozens" instead of hundreds or thousands is still a key and relevant difference between this and say the Elder Scrolls Online.

    Yep, I agree with Blue too. It's just I also don't think, outside of big sieges or cities, I've ever seen more than a few dozen players in one space in an MMO. For all intents and purposes, FO76 is going to look and feel like a Fallout sandbox MMO shooter. 


    Clesrly you haven't, dont play EVE then.

    Or DAOC, or L2, or.....others...

    Not a MMORPG, but this one I'm going to play, FFA PVP or not.
    I do get Bill's point. Over time mmorpgs have been getting progressively more and more managed with respect to the max number of players that are permitted to be all in one place at a time. 

    If the graphics and other systems were still the same as the original MMOs from the late '90s and early 2000s, present day connectivity and PC power could have been used to have even more players in the same space than we did back then, before you have to start counting seconds per frame instead of frames per second. And Eve has always been a special case because there's not a whole lot that needs to be rendered in space. I know what graphics Eve has are not bad but it's nevertheless a good example of what could be done with current PC power and low graphics processing demands.

    Instead of freezing the graphics at 2000 levels, game developers (thankfully) chose to use the increased specs to give us more and more detailed graphics for environments characters and effects while at the same time focusing on game play that does not require huge number of players on screen to enjoy.

    When you put things like that together you do have to start questioning whether the potential to have large number of players on screen means all that much with respect to the players experiencing a world full of other players when the zoning, phasing and channeling tricks that are now common do a good enough job of simulating the experience.

    I personally do enjoy large scale PVP and want large crowds for that, but if I'm being honest, that is the only thing I do in MMOs where having those large crowds makes my gaming experience better. With a lot of other things I do in MMOs, large crowds are not needed and sometimes they just get in the way.

    So a game like ESO that is heavily instanced and phased and spawns local instances on the fly if a location is getting too crowded for all PVE, but at the same time allows several hundred players to be in one PVP zone at the same time for large scale RvR, suits me fine. I think of it as an MMO and so do most of us with the possible exception of one or two extremists here.

    I still can't bring myself to call a game like FO76 an MMO because it never allows more than "dozens" anywhere at any time for any reason. But I do see why some question whether there is any practical difference worth fretting about and I especially see it for people that never participate in large scale PVP - and there has always been quite a few of those players in MMOs. 
    I don't disagree, and I have no problem if this game only supports 12 per shard or whatever.

    But once again I was annoyed when I excitedly read the title and thought FO76 really was going to be more of a traditional MMORPG and it turns out to actually just be a more full featured survival title. 

    No that its bad that this is the case, I've yet to even try a survival game as I've been waiting for one to "release" and be done right.

    Conan seems to have promise and be "almost there," but with the news I'll be practicing by playing FO 4 from now until November. 

    They had better tone down sniping a bunch or no one will be safe from me, I am deadly at freehand headshot sniping, and am working on doing so on the run.

    Same for the combat shotgun, no way they can go live without reigning that in.  As that assassin tells Beatrice Kiddo in Kill Bill 2, I am a fking surgeon with this shotgun,  but not that I have to be at this range.

    ;)




    BillMurphy

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

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

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

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

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

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






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,007


    It's WAY more than Rust or even Conan. The trailers do a better job explaining it than I can.



    Exactly! Think GTA5, not Rust.
    You know, GTA5 with players actually PVPing in an open setting is a whole like RUST, complete with griefing and hacking right?
    H0urg1ass

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

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

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

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

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

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






  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,889
    Kyleran said:


    It's WAY more than Rust or even Conan. The trailers do a better job explaining it than I can.



    Exactly! Think GTA5, not Rust.
    You know, GTA5 with players actually PVPing in an open setting is a whole like RUST, complete with griefing and hacking right?
    His second post, don't dissolution them so quickly. :)
    MadFrenchie

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,007
    Krayka said:
    Krayka said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game. 
    It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.  
    They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO. 
    "Hundreds of players"  so which games are mmos today according to you ?   I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.  
    An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
    Says who?  Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s.  I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo.  I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.  
    The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
    There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.

    For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance. 

    Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.  

    100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable. 

    MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them.  There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.

    Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
    I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
    Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online...  there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.

    Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area,  but is it an MMO or is it not?  You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything? 

    It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either.  It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO" 

    Nothing is clearly defined,  so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that. 
    You are somewhat correct in the definition of MMO not requiring a persistent world, I can't agree when MMORPG is used as in the title of the news article.

    But the first two letters in both stand for Massively Multiplayer, no getting around that.

    Now we can go all day debating whether 300 in a lobby but 12 in a shard qualifies (doesn't for me) but ultimately the name ANET came up for GW1 years ago seems most apt, Cooperative Online Role Playing Game.  (CORPG)

    Not sure why this site and so many others struggle with the concept.

    Heck, "survival game' isn't really a good genre descriptor as someone may one day create one that caters to thousands. 

    Survival CORPG would be far more suitable for most in the current crop, at least  IMO.


    MadFrenchiemaskedweasel

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

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

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

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

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

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






  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597
    "Softcore Survival"... so... like the late night Cinemax of survival games...?
    MadFrenchieKyleranSlapshot1188TorvalBillMurphyScot
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Robsolf said:
    "Softcore Survival"... so... like the late night Cinemax of survival games...?
    Shared world shooter RPG Skinemax survival game.  In a league of its own.
    KyleranRobsolf

    image
  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597
    Robsolf said:
    "Softcore Survival"... so... like the late night Cinemax of survival games...?
    Shared world shooter RPG Skinemax survival game.  In a league of its own.
    "This case of explosive dysentary is makin' me hawny!  Still, I need to go to the medical tent to cure it, and to raise the money, I'll have to get 3 of my lady friends together to do a bikini car wash!  Tonight, we'll plan the whole thing over a lingerie slumber party, and then get into an impromptu slow motion pillow fight!  Those silly boys from the Nuka Cola processing plant better not peep in on us, tee hee!!!"
    KumaponMadFrenchieTorval
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,577
    Kyleran said:
    Krayka said:
    Krayka said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    Kabulozo said:
    It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game. 
    It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.  
    They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO. 
    "Hundreds of players"  so which games are mmos today according to you ?   I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.  
    An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
    Says who?  Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s.  I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo.  I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.  
    The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
    There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.

    For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance. 

    Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.  

    100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable. 

    MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them.  There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.

    Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
    I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
    Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online...  there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.

    Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area,  but is it an MMO or is it not?  You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything? 

    It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either.  It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO" 

    Nothing is clearly defined,  so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that. 
    You are somewhat correct in the definition of MMO not requiring a persistent world, I can't agree when MMORPG is used as in the title of the news article.

    But the first two letters in both stand for Massively Multiplayer, no getting around that.

    Now we can go all day debating whether 300 in a lobby but 12 in a shard qualifies (doesn't for me) but ultimately the name ANET came up for GW1 years ago seems most apt, Cooperative Online Role Playing Game.  (CORPG)

    Not sure why this site and so many others struggle with the concept.

    Heck, "survival game' isn't really a good genre descriptor as someone may one day create one that caters to thousands. 

    Survival CORPG would be far more suitable for most in the current crop, at least  IMO.


    You're certainly not wrong. But sometimes it's hard to define what is and isn't an MMORPG.  CORPG was certainly a term created and coined by Anet, but it also wasn't really open at the time of coining the term where players would ever meet anyone outside of towns. 

    In that same sense Phantasy Star Universe was similar, lots of people in towns, but only groups outside,  whereas a game like Destiny, well you have lots of people that you can meet in a town, and you can meet them freely in an open world, with some limitations, but then The Division is the reverse of that, where you only meet people in the Dark Zone but in PvE areas it's just you and your group. 

    All of these games are in some way a hybridization of the genre.  Something being massive I've always taken into consideration of what the games are relative to.  

    I don't know what a developer considers their game or what they don't. If a developer has a world where 100 people are in an area and THEY claim that it's an MMO... an argument could be made, but not a particularly great argument.  For example, Closers is considered an MMO... it's largely not an MMO except for hubs. :shrug: I could try and debate the developers on it I guess, but they call it what they call it. 
    Torval



  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,597
    DMKano said:
    Not sure why people are so hung on the stupid definition - who  cares? MMO, not mmo, survival - whatever

    Will it have fun gameplay - all that matters to me.
    I'm still holding them fast to the "softcore" label.  If I can't name my character Pipboy Larry and have it fit thematically, I shall voice my displeasure on every website in existence.  I'll even bring back Geocities and make all the original hamster dancers wave their privates at a Bethesda logo...

    See if I don't!
    Torval
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,313
    edited June 2018
    DMKano said:
    Not sure why people are so hung on the stupid definition - who  cares? MMO, not mmo, survival - whatever

    Will it have fun gameplay - all that matters to me.
    I guess the same reason the Devs are hung up on not labeling it an MMORPG , simply because they realize its not one..

     I dont understand why this site continulally pushes this agenda naming everything an MMO , the game will stand on its own merits as a Multiplayer/Coop game , They do not need to continue labeling things incorrectly ,.. The real question here is why is this Site hung up on mislabeling games .. ?

      It doesnt make cents , and when something doesnt make cents it makes dollars , there is an agenda here , a very , unnecessary and  transparent agenda .

    JamesGoblinLimnic
  • XodicXodic Member EpicPosts: 1,125
    Robsolf said:
    DMKano said:
    Not sure why people are so hung on the stupid definition - who  cares? MMO, not mmo, survival - whatever

    Will it have fun gameplay - all that matters to me.
    I'm still holding them fast to the "softcore" label.  If I can't name my character Pipboy Larry and have it fit thematically, I shall voice my displeasure on every website in existence.  I'll even bring back Geocities and make all the original hamster dancers wave their privates at a Bethesda logo...

    See if I don't!

    Power Armor Larry, prestigious member of the Lounge Lizards.
    Robsolf
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,187
    Kyleran said:
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:



    Iselin said:

    It's a lot closer to survival games than an MMORPG but it does sound very cool with traditional Fallout story quests built in.

    What Tod Howard said in the presentation tonight that "you can carry your progress to other servers" and "you won't even notice you're in a different server" sounds to me like they'll be using something like a heavily instanced megaserver tech to handle different servers more seamlessly than what is normal in survival games.

    I get what you're saying @BillMurphy, l in that this will be the closest a survival game has ever gotten to a full fledged mmoprg with respect to game play elements, size, quests and scope but I also agree with @blueturtle13 that "dozens" instead of hundreds or thousands is still a key and relevant difference between this and say the Elder Scrolls Online.

    Yep, I agree with Blue too. It's just I also don't think, outside of big sieges or cities, I've ever seen more than a few dozen players in one space in an MMO. For all intents and purposes, FO76 is going to look and feel like a Fallout sandbox MMO shooter. 


    Clesrly you haven't, dont play EVE then.

    Or DAOC, or L2, or.....others...

    Not a MMORPG, but this one I'm going to play, FFA PVP or not.
    I do get Bill's point. Over time mmorpgs have been getting progressively more and more managed with respect to the max number of players that are permitted to be all in one place at a time. 

    If the graphics and other systems were still the same as the original MMOs from the late '90s and early 2000s, present day connectivity and PC power could have been used to have even more players in the same space than we did back then, before you have to start counting seconds per frame instead of frames per second. And Eve has always been a special case because there's not a whole lot that needs to be rendered in space. I know what graphics Eve has are not bad but it's nevertheless a good example of what could be done with current PC power and low graphics processing demands.

    Instead of freezing the graphics at 2000 levels, game developers (thankfully) chose to use the increased specs to give us more and more detailed graphics for environments characters and effects while at the same time focusing on game play that does not require huge number of players on screen to enjoy.

    When you put things like that together you do have to start questioning whether the potential to have large number of players on screen means all that much with respect to the players experiencing a world full of other players when the zoning, phasing and channeling tricks that are now common do a good enough job of simulating the experience.

    I personally do enjoy large scale PVP and want large crowds for that, but if I'm being honest, that is the only thing I do in MMOs where having those large crowds makes my gaming experience better. With a lot of other things I do in MMOs, large crowds are not needed and sometimes they just get in the way.

    So a game like ESO that is heavily instanced and phased and spawns local instances on the fly if a location is getting too crowded for all PVE, but at the same time allows several hundred players to be in one PVP zone at the same time for large scale RvR, suits me fine. I think of it as an MMO and so do most of us with the possible exception of one or two extremists here.

    I still can't bring myself to call a game like FO76 an MMO because it never allows more than "dozens" anywhere at any time for any reason. But I do see why some question whether there is any practical difference worth fretting about and I especially see it for people that never participate in large scale PVP - and there has always been quite a few of those players in MMOs. 
    I don't disagree, and I have no problem if this game only supports 12 per shard or whatever.

    But once again I was annoyed when I excitedly read the title and thought FO76 really was going to be more of a traditional MMORPG and it turns out to actually just be a more full featured survival title. 

    No that its bad that this is the case, I've yet to even try a survival game as I've been waiting for one to "release" and be done right.

    Conan seems to have promise and be "almost there," but with the news I'll be practicing by playing FO 4 from now until November. 

    They had better tone down sniping a bunch or no one will be safe from me, I am deadly at freehand headshot sniping, and am working on doing so on the run.

    Same for the combat shotgun, no way they can go live without reigning that in.  As that assassin tells Beatrice Kiddo in Kill Bill 2, I am a fking surgeon with this shotgun,  but not that I have to be at this range.

    ;)




    Sounds like you play FO4 like I do. Shotguns and sniper rifles. Who needs anything else? ... except maybe a mini nuke now and then just for fun :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,187
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:



    Iselin said:

    It's a lot closer to survival games than an MMORPG but it does sound very cool with traditional Fallout story quests built in.

    What Tod Howard said in the presentation tonight that "you can carry your progress to other servers" and "you won't even notice you're in a different server" sounds to me like they'll be using something like a heavily instanced megaserver tech to handle different servers more seamlessly than what is normal in survival games.

    I get what you're saying @BillMurphy, l in that this will be the closest a survival game has ever gotten to a full fledged mmoprg with respect to game play elements, size, quests and scope but I also agree with @blueturtle13 that "dozens" instead of hundreds or thousands is still a key and relevant difference between this and say the Elder Scrolls Online.

    Yep, I agree with Blue too. It's just I also don't think, outside of big sieges or cities, I've ever seen more than a few dozen players in one space in an MMO. For all intents and purposes, FO76 is going to look and feel like a Fallout sandbox MMO shooter. 


    Clesrly you haven't, dont play EVE then.

    Or DAOC, or L2, or.....others...

    Not a MMORPG, but this one I'm going to play, FFA PVP or not.
    I do get Bill's point. Over time mmorpgs have been getting progressively more and more managed with respect to the max number of players that are permitted to be all in one place at a time. 

    If the graphics and other systems were still the same as the original MMOs from the late '90s and early 2000s, present day connectivity and PC power could have been used to have even more players in the same space than we did back then, before you have to start counting seconds per frame instead of frames per second. And Eve has always been a special case because there's not a whole lot that needs to be rendered in space. I know what graphics Eve has are not bad but it's nevertheless a good example of what could be done with current PC power and low graphics processing demands.

    Instead of freezing the graphics at 2000 levels, game developers (thankfully) chose to use the increased specs to give us more and more detailed graphics for environments characters and effects while at the same time focusing on game play that does not require huge number of players on screen to enjoy.

    When you put things like that together you do have to start questioning whether the potential to have large number of players on screen means all that much with respect to the players experiencing a world full of other players when the zoning, phasing and channeling tricks that are now common do a good enough job of simulating the experience.

    I personally do enjoy large scale PVP and want large crowds for that, but if I'm being honest, that is the only thing I do in MMOs where having those large crowds makes my gaming experience better. With a lot of other things I do in MMOs, large crowds are not needed and sometimes they just get in the way.

    So a game like ESO that is heavily instanced and phased and spawns local instances on the fly if a location is getting too crowded for all PVE, but at the same time allows several hundred players to be in one PVP zone at the same time for large scale RvR, suits me fine. I think of it as an MMO and so do most of us with the possible exception of one or two extremists here.

    I still can't bring myself to call a game like FO76 an MMO because it never allows more than "dozens" anywhere at any time for any reason. But I do see why some question whether there is any practical difference worth fretting about and I especially see it for people that never participate in large scale PVP - and there has always been quite a few of those players in MMOs. 
    I somewhat agree, but remember that the "graphics arms race" is the chief cause of exploding development costs.  You can't bitch about monetization methods like we do without acknowledging that we contribute because we demand high poly-counts and HDR lighting everywhere.

    Our constant need for pushing the envelope on graphics, and our monetary support of games that do so, do cause priorities to shift within development.  The Watch Dogs trailer debate comes to mind.

    If fans of truly massively multiplayer games want to experience said massively multiplayer, we first need to recognize that we can't expect the releases to be competitive in the visual department because that costs a shit ton of time, money, and PC resources to run that could be used on other things.
    I didn't say that they have to be single player game state of the art but they have to be good enough in that context after you make allowances for the greater need to manage poly counts in multiplayer.

    But IMO I'm much more forgiving of low poly counts than they typical fans who bitch incessantly about graphics.

    And your tie-in with over the top monetization is buying into the whole "but it costs more to make" tired excuse - It has nothing to do with that, it's all about pushing the ROI envelope because players have shown themselves to be suckers and some studios want to monetize the shit out of them to the breaking point, which, apparently, was SWBF2.

    The Witcher 3 had the very best graphics for RPGs when it was released and probably still does. CDPR's restrained monetization shows that no, it's not because of players demanding better graphics. 
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Member EpicPosts: 3,321
    From research and what they posted on Twitter...

    Todd said there is gonna be quests. But, its only going to be radiant quests. Radiant quests 100%, no actual story

    The only "NPC" will be the overseer...which is a machine and the single only source of "quests"

    They said ALL humans will be other players

    The quests are going to in fact not be quests, but tasks. To explore an area, to explore, get resources and what not

    Its literally rust/fortnite with a fallout skin lol. Not even any quests to do and no storyline, unless you think the radiant "quests" are actual quests lol.
    immodiumMidPrincessJeleenaAsm0deusJamesGoblinOG_Zorvan

    My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB: 

    https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul



  • KraykaKrayka Member UncommonPosts: 28
    So this is considered an MMORPG these days? Cool. 

    You should have seen what we used to call MMORPG 15+ years ago. They were completely different games with layers of complexity these online survival games can only dream of.
    Sadly those days are never coming back due to the new generation of gamers. Let’s just hope they don’t close down those games for a long time so people who enjoy a game with substance can continue to enjoy them.
  • KraykaKrayka Member UncommonPosts: 28
    edited June 2018
    From research and what they posted on Twitter...

    Todd said there is gonna be quests. But, its only going to be radiant quests. Radiant quests 100%, no actual story

    The only "NPC" will be the overseer...which is a machine and the single only source of "quests"

    They said ALL humans will be other players

    The quests are going to in fact not be quests, but tasks. To explore an area, to explore, get resources and what not

    Its literally rust/fortnite with a fallout skin lol. Not even any quests to do and no storyline, unless you think the radiant "quests" are actual quests lol.
    Sounds like they just ripped that off from Conan Exiles and transplanted it into their next shitty game, the “tasks” that is.
Sign In or Register to comment.