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

  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 21,177
    edited June 2018
    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.
    BillMurphymaskedweaselXodicGazimoffimmodiumturinmacleodlaseritTorvalRobsolfSovrath
  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,596
    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: 6,871
    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: 984
    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: 12,905
    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
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,905
    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
  • 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.
  • immodiumimmodium Member RarePosts: 2,576
    edited June 2018
    Todds confirmed VATS is in the game, it's all done in real time.

    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.
    He mentioned Robot's are in the game so they could offer out quest lines.

    Also terminals and holotapes are in so another source for quests possibly.

    image
  • 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: 16,452
    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: 6,871
    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: 16,452
    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: 8,483
    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: 27,050

    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: 46
    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: 8,483
    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: 11,753
    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: 1,542
    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
     
    Currently: Games Audio Engineer
    You've heard what I've heard

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,905
    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
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,660
    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
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
Sign In or Register to comment.