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

145791013

Comments

  • GazimoffGazimoff Staff WriterMember UncommonPosts: 225
    So here's the thing about labels.

    Gamers are precious about the label 'MMO'. Some take it to mean that hundreds or thousands of players can be logged into a single zone, or all displayed on-screen. They shackle themselves to a strict definition of the term 'massive' as if it's some gospel handed down from Lord British or somesuch.

    And yet, in the same breath, any game that strives for this is met with complaints about performance. There's too much lag. My FPS is terrible. It looks cartoony or primitive like it was launched five years ago.

    There's a reason for this, and it's threefold:

    First, gamers are fickle. Think about all the other variables of a game - storyline, setting, protagonist and antagonist, weapons, etc. - and players will make a purchasing decision based purely on that. There's actually research firms out there who will calculate how likely we are to buy the game, purely based on a bullet list.

    Secondly, there's a huge range of hardware out there amongst the PC player base. According to the Steam Hardware survey, most of us are rocking a quad-core processor with 8MB RAM and an NVIDIA GTX 1060, driving a 1080p display. That's plenty for a session of WoW or GW2, or running through Destiny 2. But don't expect Destiny 2 quality graphics in a game that supports WoW's number of players in one place - the hardware requirements would be such that only a few gamers could play it.

    Thirdly, the infrastructure itself has changed. With few exceptions, most developers don't buy their own hardware anymore. Instead, they use cloud platforms, harnessing hundreds or thousands of virtual machines to power our games. This has huge benefits in controlling costs, as capacity can be scaled up or down as it's needed. But it also means that the live game experience (player locations, weapon physics prediction, caching, managing NPCs and monsters, etc.) needs to be carved up into chunks that a virtual machine can hold. As we've seen from games like Ark etc., this will usually cap out at around 64 players, although you can use bridging or megaserver tech to make this much more transparent and dynamic (e.g. ESO).

    These are huge shared experience games, that offer Persistence (experience carries over between game sessions), Progression (working towards long-term goals beyond completing the immediate story), and Partnership (the ability to form guilds or clans that have an additional purpose in-game). Saying that they're not MMOs purely because of who you can see on screen regardless of who you play with is *extremely* narrow-minded.

    On the flip-side, call a game 'Multiplayer' or 'Co-op', and people immediately think of games like DOOM, Starcraft or (now) Stardew Valley. Almost always takes a bit of work to set up and usually lasts for a single session. There's no implied Persistence, Partnership or Progression. The label isn't sufficient to describe the wide scope of the game. It's a label that falls waaaay short.

    TL:DR If you can play with thousands or millions of people, regardless of how many are in your sharded instance, plus it includes Persistence, Partnership, and Progression, it's an MMO. 
    maskedweaselklash2defTorval
    Player of games, smither of words, former of opinions, and masher of keys. WildStar Columnist
    Currently playing: WildStar, Guild Wars 2, EVE Online, Vain Glory.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,129
    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.
    You are correct ,the title of or the definition is not a big deal however....

    Thew only problem i have with devs claiming their game is a MMO,is their game has very little MMO,but only add the login screen because they want to utilize an ongoing cash shop,an ideal that wouldn't work with a single player game.
    So yes you are correct,it doesn't matter,it is more about the WHY the devs are calling their games MMO's and that is GREED to get more money out of a single player game than it is worth.

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

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,437
    Wizardry 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.
    You are correct ,the title of or the definition is not a big deal however....

    Thew only problem i have with devs claiming their game is a MMO,is their game has very little MMO,but only add the login screen because they want to utilize an ongoing cash shop,an ideal that wouldn't work with a single player game.
    So yes you are correct,it doesn't matter,it is more about the WHY the devs are calling their games MMO's and that is GREED to get more money out of a single player game than it is worth.
    your missing the point .. The Devs are not callin it an MMO ,to the contrary they are calling it a Multiplayer game ... ...  go figure
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,129
    I said this the other day,i have been doing pvp for 20 years,we never had cash shops and we never needed to pay anything on going.Examples Quake...Unrealtournament,Half life pvp,we can even toss in Counterstrike during it's vanilla days.

    Now a days,the Fortnites and the HOTS and the LOL and every other game seems to have some form of ongoing costs,some form of a cash shop and that is why we see login screens.
    Asm0deus

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

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited June 2018
    Gazimoff said:
    So here's the thing about labels.

    Gamers are precious about the label 'MMO'. Some take it to mean that hundreds or thousands of players can be logged into a single zone, or all displayed on-screen. They shackle themselves to a strict definition of the term 'massive' as if it's some gospel handed down from Lord British or somesuch.

    And yet, in the same breath, any game that strives for this is met with complaints about performance. There's too much lag. My FPS is terrible. It looks cartoony or primitive like it was launched five years ago.

    There's a reason for this, and it's threefold:

    First, gamers are fickle. Think about all the other variables of a game - storyline, setting, protagonist and antagonist, weapons, etc. - and players will make a purchasing decision based purely on that. There's actually research firms out there who will calculate how likely we are to buy the game, purely based on a bullet list.

    Secondly, there's a huge range of hardware out there amongst the PC player base. According to the Steam Hardware survey, most of us are rocking a quad-core processor with 8MB RAM and an NVIDIA GTX 1060, driving a 1080p display. That's plenty for a session of WoW or GW2, or running through Destiny 2. But don't expect Destiny 2 quality graphics in a game that supports WoW's number of players in one place - the hardware requirements would be such that only a few gamers could play it.

    Thirdly, the infrastructure itself has changed. With few exceptions, most developers don't buy their own hardware anymore. Instead, they use cloud platforms, harnessing hundreds or thousands of virtual machines to power our games. This has huge benefits in controlling costs, as capacity can be scaled up or down as it's needed. But it also means that the live game experience (player locations, weapon physics prediction, caching, managing NPCs and monsters, etc.) needs to be carved up into chunks that a virtual machine can hold. As we've seen from games like Ark etc., this will usually cap out at around 64 players, although you can use bridging or megaserver tech to make this much more transparent and dynamic (e.g. ESO).

    These are huge shared experience games, that offer Persistence (experience carries over between game sessions), Progression (working towards long-term goals beyond completing the immediate story), and Partnership (the ability to form guilds or clans that have an additional purpose in-game). Saying that they're not MMOs purely because of who you can see on screen regardless of who you play with is *extremely* narrow-minded.

    On the flip-side, call a game 'Multiplayer' or 'Co-op', and people immediately think of games like DOOM, Starcraft or (now) Stardew Valley. Almost always takes a bit of work to set up and usually lasts for a single session. There's no implied Persistence, Partnership or Progression. The label isn't sufficient to describe the wide scope of the game. It's a label that falls waaaay short.

    TL:DR If you can play with thousands or millions of people, regardless of how many are in your sharded instance, plus it includes Persistence, Partnership, and Progression, it's an MMO. 
    Neither my brother nor any of his friends that play Destiny 2 consider it an MMO.  EDIT- and while we're at it, while still a flawed sample, it absolutely appears the majority of the folks who visit here don't consider it an MMO experience, either.

    Honestly, Destiny 2 is so far away from even feeling like an MMO I'm baffled as to why people continue to use it as an example of the "expanded" definitipn.  Even the lobby towns are very limited in player counts compared to, say, Stormwind.  It's not even close to comparable.

    You get out in the field, and you literally don't see any more than roughly a squad's worth of folks.  How does that "feel" like an MMO?  Because the game matches for you?  That's a huge stretch.

    If we're going by feels, how the heck do you explain NOT including a franchise like Battlefield then?  When you can play matches of 64v64 (larger than pretty much all instanced PvP in MMORPGs, save for a few like Alterac Valley), but nobody here or throughout the industry tries to label it an MMO, then I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no consistency and the label becomes useless.  That game will auto-match you, just like Destiny.  Is it because it's session-based?  The how does LoL qualify?

    What makes Destiny different from Vermintide?  A lobby that still doesn't have a massive (by any stretch of the word) amount of players in it you can barely interact with aside from emotes?  That's pretty thin.  Again, is it because it's session based with no physical lobby?  Then again, I ask: why is LoL and other MOBAs included?  Once you're on mission in Destiny, you won't see but a handful more players simultaneously than the team you can matchmake with in Vermintide, so that's not a differentiator between Vermintide and Destiny, either.

    When your own expanded definition proves hypocritical, one likely should review it for rationale and consistency.

    That's my main beef.  Those espousing an expanded definition don't do it out of any real objective assessment of multiplayer features, but the "feels." That doesn't hold a lot of logical weight.

    EDIT- the argument for the expanded definition too often boils down to "yea yea, it doesn't include massive multiplayer, but it's multiplayer enough for ME.  Therefore, it's an MMO." But that's not how genres work.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    LimnicJamesGoblinLokero

    image
  • MidPrincessMidPrincess Member UncommonPosts: 89
    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.
    As much as I love Fallout, if this above list pans out to be true I'll be skipping this.  No NPCs, or sorely limited NPCs?  Other players all over the place, which IMO brings absolutely nothing to the gameplay and will most likely serve only as a detriment to what used to be a single-player experience?  Running around gathering resources, I would assume with which you will craft some sort of base, and that will apparently be able to be damaged/destroyed by other players? 

    I'm sorry but this is dumbing down of the worst kind.  Hey maybe they'll have a Battle Royale mode!  Wouldn't that be great?  So they can be just like everybody else!  Pointless gameplay all 'round!

    Now I'm officially disappointed.  I thought Bethesda was too well-adjusted to their strengths to give in to the latest hype train.
    Asm0deus
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,956

    I'm sorry but this is dumbing down of the worst kind.
    How is this "dumbing down". If anything it's creating larger challenges by requiring every person to interact with his/her fellow players.

    There's nothing "dumb" about that.
    Torval
  • DisantiaDisantia Member UncommonPosts: 50
    Did he say we wouldn't lose our stuff if we die? Or did he say we wouldn't lose our progress? There's a difference
  • GazimoffGazimoff Staff WriterMember UncommonPosts: 225
    MadFrenchie said:

    Neither my brother nor any of his friends that play Destiny 2 consider it an MMO.

    Neither did I. Then again, for me it falls way short on Partnership (the Clan is basically an extended friends list with a few perks) and Progression (lack of long-term goals beyond immediate story)

    For me, that's the difference between Destiny 2 and ESO (and, potentially, Fallout 76).
    Torval
    Player of games, smither of words, former of opinions, and masher of keys. WildStar Columnist
    Currently playing: WildStar, Guild Wars 2, EVE Online, Vain Glory.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited June 2018
    Gazimoff said:
    MadFrenchie said:

    Neither my brother nor any of his friends that play Destiny 2 consider it an MMO.

    Neither did I. Then again, for me it falls way short on Partnership (the Clan is basically an extended friends list with a few perks) and Progression (lack of long-term goals beyond immediate story)

    For me, that's the difference between Destiny 2 and ESO (and, potentially, Fallout 76).
    Sorry for implying you did, then.

    I'm cautious these days about requiring anything other than multiplayer capabilities when applying the definition.  To me, considering features like persistence or progression falls to the letters or words included after the MMO.  It's extremely tough to include those items as reqs without making the label less clear and consistent, because there's a multitude of different ways you can create progression, and many titles that have similar progression are far different in terms of multiplayer capabilities (as an example, Vermintide and Battlefield contain very similar progression, with individual classes unlocking weapons and other items, such as class perks, but they are far different levels of multiplayer).

    image
  • FrozenyearroundFrozenyearround Member UncommonPosts: 155
    edited June 2018
    Krayka said:
    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.
    You are approaching commenting on something you don't like and think is "shitty" for 8 HOURS now.  Don't you have a game you enjoy you could play or comment on?  

    I mean nothing wrong with making a couple comments to show your displeasure but repeating fallout is "shit" everything they have released for the last ten years is "shit" once an hour for 8  HOURS now is a little excessive in my opinion.  
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 13,835
    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 can almost guarantee you it will have "fun" gameplay and decent graphics. What I can't guarantee you is will there be depth, some degree of difficulty, enough of an RPG experience, how much of a overpriced GAAS it will be, the extent of P2W elements? Lot more things than "fun" go into a good game of any sort.

     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

  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,785
    Gazimoff said:

    These are huge shared experience games, that offer Persistence (experience carries over between game sessions), Progression (working towards long-term goals beyond completing the immediate story), and Partnership (the ability to form guilds or clans that have an additional purpose in-game). Saying that they're not MMOs purely because of who you can see on screen regardless of who you play with is *extremely* narrow-minded.

    On the flip-side, call a game 'Multiplayer' or 'Co-op', and people immediately think of games like DOOM, Starcraft or (now) Stardew Valley. Almost always takes a bit of work to set up and usually lasts for a single session. There's no implied Persistence, Partnership or Progression. The label isn't sufficient to describe the wide scope of the game. It's a label that falls waaaay short.

    TL:DR If you can play with thousands or millions of people, regardless of how many are in your sharded instance, plus it includes Persistence, Partnership, and Progression, it's an MMO. 
    Been saying this forever. I imagine in a few years most games will be the shared world, games as a service type of games. That will be your "MMO" and the writing was on the wall long ago. 

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. Developers aren't. That's why they don't say it anymore. The new thing that raised from the ashes is what we are seeing now, it started with games like Destiny, Division, ESO, add Anthem and Fallout76. Others will follow.

    Online, Heavily Instanced, Persistent, Shared World, Game as a Service.

    Don't be surprised if is treated like a modern day MMO (Cash-Shop, Persistent Progression, xpacs etc). They will never say it is one just like the others in that space. They will just treat it as such and some of you people will hold on to the "nUmBeR oF pEoPlE" argument as your game spaces get smaller and smaller. 

    lol

    I cannot wait for F76

    "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

    "What does it mean to be human? In a time when people's humanity is perennially called into question?"
    - Dr. Cornell West
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,690
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    LimnicMadFrenchieJamesGoblinTacticalZombeh
    “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
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,297
    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!
    Your guild could be the Lounge Lizards. :lol:
    immodium
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MidPrincessMidPrincess Member UncommonPosts: 89
    Sovrath said:

    I'm sorry but this is dumbing down of the worst kind.
    How is this "dumbing down". If anything it's creating larger challenges by requiring every person to interact with his/her fellow players.

    There's nothing "dumb" about that.
    Well, let's see...you know how FO 4 basically removed all RPG elements that had existed in FO 3 and before?  For example, instead of being able to talk/sneak/etc your way through objectives as you could previously, in FO 4 the lone way (usually, at least) to complete a quest was to shoot everything living?  For another example, the way in which it became possible to have all skills in all trees maxed out with enough play time, instead of having to choose as you did before?

    THAT sort of dumbing down.  The sort we've seen before, and as I'm sure you know, simpler is NOT always better....as a matter of fact, when it comes to gaming, it rarely is.  So now (and again, this is very early) we are being shown another "survival" game with (apparently, at least) sorely limited quests or objectives.  The absence of NPCs will (probably) mean the absence of any story or real goals.  What, you didn't think "requiring" people to interact with others is going to expand a storyline or create anything for the thinking man, did you?  And if the game does indeed allow players to destroy other players' stuff, steal from them, and so forth....how precisely does that "create" any sort of challenge or add any type of RPG element?  I can see it creating frustration, and that's about it.
    NeonShadow
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,297
    Sovrath said:

    I'm sorry but this is dumbing down of the worst kind.
    How is this "dumbing down". If anything it's creating larger challenges by requiring every person to interact with his/her fellow players.

    There's nothing "dumb" about that.
    If anything I consider this an evolution and progression of the survival genre. It's clutched tenaciously to very crude mechanics that have a lot of room for interesting growth. Let's not hold it back just for the sake of rabble rousing. Gamers love their torch and pitchforks.

    At lunch today we decided that no matter what Bethesda announced there would be angry indignant mobs.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,956
    edited June 2018
    Sovrath said:

    I'm sorry but this is dumbing down of the worst kind.
    How is this "dumbing down". If anything it's creating larger challenges by requiring every person to interact with his/her fellow players.

    There's nothing "dumb" about that.
    Well, let's see...you know how FO 4 basically removed all RPG elements that had existed in FO 3 and before?  For example, instead of being able to talk/sneak/etc your way through objectives as you could previously, in FO 4 the lone way (usually, at least) to complete a quest was to shoot everything living?  For another example, the way in which it became possible to have all skills in all trees maxed out with enough play time, instead of having to choose as you did before?

    THAT sort of dumbing down.  The sort we've seen before, and as I'm sure you know, simpler is NOT always better....as a matter of fact, when it comes to gaming, it rarely is.  So now (and again, this is very early) we are being shown another "survival" game with (apparently, at least) sorely limited quests or objectives.  The absence of NPCs will (probably) mean the absence of any story or real goals.  What, you didn't think "requiring" people to interact with others is going to expand a storyline or create anything for the thinking man, did you?  And if the game does indeed allow players to destroy other players' stuff, steal from them, and so forth....how precisely does that "create" any sort of challenge or add any type of RPG element?  I can see it creating frustration, and that's about it.
    yeah but not every game requires a story line.

    As I've mentioned before, I have a friend who only plays Elder scrolls games. that's it. And he never did most of the quests of Morrowind or Oblvion. He told me he just didn't care about story but the immersive experience.

    And he's probably one of the smartest people I know, definitely a "thinking man". PhD from Harvard and a degree from Oxford but he doesn't care about story.

    sometimes being "a thinking man" is just that. You motivate yourself with your own reasons.

    I'm a pretty smart cookie "for the most part" (no Phd I can tell ya) but I love the idea of a game with absolutely no story.

    And I usually am the one who reads all the quests. Thing is, over the years, quests have become a bit crap for the most part. I'd much rather be dumped into a world and told "well good luck".

    That to me is far more exciting and interesting.
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,785
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    "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

    "What does it mean to be human? In a time when people's humanity is perennially called into question?"
    - Dr. Cornell West
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,690
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    ScorchienLimnicJamesGoblinNeonShadow
    “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
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,785
    edited June 2018
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    LOL... "Randomly Change their meaning"  I'm not randomly changing anything. It is not random, there is a clear pattern. I'm using it as a descriptor. Which is exactly what it is.

    It's changed completely since the term was introduced as a marketing term, then later adapted as a genre now used as a descriptor. I didn't personally do that, the community did those things, I just went with it. 

    Early 2000s - MMO: Sold Boxes and Boxes of Online games because the internet was still new and people were buying into the fantasy of playing with people all over the world. Hence "Massively"

    Mid 2000s - MMO: so many games are coming out (Everyday) using the term that it becomes a genre. Companies see the value in MMO because of the success of WoW and run with it.

    2010s- MMO: MMO genre is in massive decline and starts to die. Most of them forced to go Free2Play just to lure customers in the door only to hit them with cash shop offers and the genre as a whole begins to die. most gamers start to use MMO as a descriptor of a type of game. Always online, Multiplayer, smaller, persistent world games start to be developed and released. Devs stop saying MMO when describing these games because of the negative connotation. 

    2020s: Prediction: MMO Genre will be 95% dead (WoW maybe being an exception) the term will be generally accepted as a describer of a typical game. Much like saying Sports Game, and NBA 2K or Madden. People will say MMO Anthem and everyone will know the type of game Anthem was.

    You don't need to tell me something is happening. I've been saying it for years. I've been saying what it is the entire time. MMO genre is dead and something new has taken its place. We call these new things MMO because they are born literally from the exact same things as the previous generation of MMO. If it were not we wouldn't call em that. I personally like the term MMO-Lite but I'm just one person.

    Whatever you wanna call it the term MMO is still in there so what are you really mad at? That it's not a "TRUE" mmo? LMAO jeeze. You want us to disregard the MMO part of these games? 

    You just won't accept it. It's slapping you in the face and you still won't accept it. Maybe its age idk but do you bro.


    JamesGoblinNeonShadow
    "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

    "What does it mean to be human? In a time when people's humanity is perennially called into question?"
    - Dr. Cornell West
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard


  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,437
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    LOL... "Randomly Change their meaning"  I'm not randomly changing anything. It is not random, there is a clear pattern. I'm using it as a descriptor. Which is exactly what it is.

    It's changed completely since the term was introduced as a marketing term, then later adapted as a genre now used as a descriptor. I didn't personally do that, the community did those things, I just went with it. 

    Early 2000s - MMO: Sold Boxes and Boxes of Online games because the internet was still new and people were buying into the fantasy of playing with people all over the world. Hence "Massively"

    Mid 2000s - MMO: so many games are coming out (Everyday) using the term that it becomes a genre. Companies see the value in MMO because of the success of WoW and run with it.

    2010s- MMO: MMO genre is in massive decline and starts to die. Most of them forced to go Free2Play just to lure customers in the door only to hit them with cash shop offers and the genre as a whole begins to die. most gamers start to use MMO as a descriptor of a type of game. Always online, Multiplayer, smaller, persistent world games start to be developed and released. Devs stop saying MMO when describing these games because of the negative connotation. 

    2020s: Prediction: MMO Genre will be 95% dead (WoW maybe being an exception) the term will be generally accepted as a describer of a typical game. Much like saying Sports Game, and NBA 2K or Madden. People will say MMO Anthem and everyone will know the type of game Anthem was.

    I've been saying what it is the entire time. You just won't accept it. It's slapping you in the face in you still won't accept it. Do you bro.
    You need to let Bethesda know what they are making , they think they are making a Mutli/Coop game ..

       Be great if you clear it up for them
    JamesGoblinTacticalZombeh
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,785
    Scorchien said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    LOL... "Randomly Change their meaning"  I'm not randomly changing anything. It is not random, there is a clear pattern. I'm using it as a descriptor. Which is exactly what it is.

    It's changed completely since the term was introduced as a marketing term, then later adapted as a genre now used as a descriptor. I didn't personally do that, the community did those things, I just went with it. 

    Early 2000s - MMO: Sold Boxes and Boxes of Online games because the internet was still new and people were buying into the fantasy of playing with people all over the world. Hence "Massively"

    Mid 2000s - MMO: so many games are coming out (Everyday) using the term that it becomes a genre. Companies see the value in MMO because of the success of WoW and run with it.

    2010s- MMO: MMO genre is in massive decline and starts to die. Most of them forced to go Free2Play just to lure customers in the door only to hit them with cash shop offers and the genre as a whole begins to die. most gamers start to use MMO as a descriptor of a type of game. Always online, Multiplayer, smaller, persistent world games start to be developed and released. Devs stop saying MMO when describing these games because of the negative connotation. 

    2020s: Prediction: MMO Genre will be 95% dead (WoW maybe being an exception) the term will be generally accepted as a describer of a typical game. Much like saying Sports Game, and NBA 2K or Madden. People will say MMO Anthem and everyone will know the type of game Anthem was.

    I've been saying what it is the entire time. You just won't accept it. It's slapping you in the face in you still won't accept it. Do you bro.
    You need to let Bethesda know what they are making , they think they are making a Mutli/Coop game ..

       Be great if you clear it up for them
    I don't need to clear up anything, I think they got it right :) 
    "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

    "What does it mean to be human? In a time when people's humanity is perennially called into question?"
    - Dr. Cornell West
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,690
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    LOL... "Randomly Change their meaning"  I'm not randomly changing anything. It is not random, there is a clear pattern. I'm using it as a descriptor. Which is exactly what it is.

    It's changed completely since the term was introduced as a marketing term, then later adapted as a genre now used as a descriptor. I didn't personally do that, the community did those things, I just went with it. 

    Early 2000s - MMO: Sold Boxes and Boxes of Online games because the internet was still new and people were buying into the fantasy of playing with people all over the world. Hence "Massively"

    Mid 2000s - MMO: so many games are coming out (Everyday) using the term that it becomes a genre. Companies see the value in MMO because of the success of WoW and run with it.

    2010s- MMO: MMO genre is in massive decline and starts to die. Most of them forced to go Free2Play just to lure customers in the door only to hit them with cash shop offers and the genre as a whole begins to die. most gamers start to use MMO as a descriptor of a type of game. Always online, Multiplayer, smaller, persistent world games start to be developed and released. Devs stop saying MMO when describing these games because of the negative connotation. 

    2020s: Prediction: MMO Genre will be 95% dead (WoW maybe being an exception) the term will be generally accepted as a describer of a typical game. Much like saying Sports Game, and NBA 2K or Madden. People will say MMO Anthem and everyone will know the type of game Anthem was.

    You don't need to tell me something is happening. I've been saying it for years. I've been saying what it is the entire time. MMO genre is dead and something new has taken its place. We call these new things MMO because they are born literally from the exact same things as the previous generation of MMO. If it were not we wouldn't call em that. I personally like the term MMO-Lite but I'm just one person.

    The term MMO is still in there so what are you really mad at? 

    You just won't accept it. It's slapping you in the face and you still won't accept it. Maybe its age idk but do you bro.


    If it's a descriptor it should be able to describe what it is. I'll wait for you to do that using words without half-baked examples :) 

    de·scrip·tor
    dəˈskriptər/
    noun
    1. an element or term that has the function of describing, identifying, or indexing, in particular.
      • LINGUISTICS
        a word or expression used to describe or identify something.
        noun: descriptor; plural noun: descriptors



    JamesGoblin
    “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
  • klash2defklash2def Member EpicPosts: 1,785
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:
    Iselin said:
    klash2def said:

    For me, MMO means nothing today. Its used to describe a "type" of game.

    Literally, as I keep telling people here, its a buzzword from the early 2000s. 

    "MMO" as you knew it died a long time ago but most people here are too afraid to admit it. 

    So if it's dead why is a different set of people afraid to let go of the MMO initials and keep using it to apply to this new shit? Lack of imagination in making up a term that does fit what currently exists?
    why do you care so much about what terminology people use? Who made you ruler of terms? 

    Last time I checked things change when new information is presented.

    "MMO" is a descriptor nothing more. The "MMO" genre has been dead for a while. It's a harsh reality that some just will not accept. The funny thing about time is, it does not care if you believe or not, its happening. With or without your belief. 
    Why do you use words at all if you want to randomly change their meaning? Doesn't that work only if you're talking to yourself? You might as well be using all purpose generic grunts.

    Something is happening here alright but you just don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones.


    LOL... "Randomly Change their meaning"  I'm not randomly changing anything. It is not random, there is a clear pattern. I'm using it as a descriptor. Which is exactly what it is.

    It's changed completely since the term was introduced as a marketing term, then later adapted as a genre now used as a descriptor. I didn't personally do that, the community did those things, I just went with it. 

    Early 2000s - MMO: Sold Boxes and Boxes of Online games because the internet was still new and people were buying into the fantasy of playing with people all over the world. Hence "Massively"

    Mid 2000s - MMO: so many games are coming out (Everyday) using the term that it becomes a genre. Companies see the value in MMO because of the success of WoW and run with it.

    2010s- MMO: MMO genre is in massive decline and starts to die. Most of them forced to go Free2Play just to lure customers in the door only to hit them with cash shop offers and the genre as a whole begins to die. most gamers start to use MMO as a descriptor of a type of game. Always online, Multiplayer, smaller, persistent world games start to be developed and released. Devs stop saying MMO when describing these games because of the negative connotation. 

    2020s: Prediction: MMO Genre will be 95% dead (WoW maybe being an exception) the term will be generally accepted as a describer of a typical game. Much like saying Sports Game, and NBA 2K or Madden. People will say MMO Anthem and everyone will know the type of game Anthem was.

    You don't need to tell me something is happening. I've been saying it for years. I've been saying what it is the entire time. MMO genre is dead and something new has taken its place. We call these new things MMO because they are born literally from the exact same things as the previous generation of MMO. If it were not we wouldn't call em that. I personally like the term MMO-Lite but I'm just one person.

    The term MMO is still in there so what are you really mad at? 

    You just won't accept it. It's slapping you in the face and you still won't accept it. Maybe its age idk but do you bro.


    If it's a descriptor it should be able to describe what it is. I'll wait for you to do that using words without half-baked examples :) 

    de·scrip·tor
    dəˈskriptər/
    noun
    1. an element or term that has the function of describing, identifying, or indexing, in particular.
      • LINGUISTICS
        a word or expression used to describe or identify something.
        noun: descriptor; plural noun: descriptors




    Descriptor- a word or expression used to describe or identify something.

    MMO - Type of game

    LMAO - Laughing My Ass Off


    "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

    "What does it mean to be human? In a time when people's humanity is perennially called into question?"
    - Dr. Cornell West
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard


Sign In or Register to comment.