Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Definition of mmorpg.

2»

Comments

  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,210
    Amazing timeline, Narug :+1:

    But I'd replace the illustrations of CO and LotRO, since delete often talks about the lack of community efforts, just as the social aspect:

    For CO, instead of a 5man bossfight, here's a gathering for a race
    (my first idea was a world boss fight with much larger crowd, but that is fairly generic, a lot of games have world bosses against 50 players...)


    For LotRO, instead of a PvMP battle in the 'Moors, here's Weatherstock (what else... the most iconic LotRO event)

    Narug
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,419
    edited March 25
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.
    GdemamimadazzKyleran
    “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
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,380
    I hear a dead horse whinnying in pain as it is needlessly beaten.
    blueturtle13Kyleran

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

  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,512
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.
    See,
    When I read an un-thought out process of what happened, all the changes that occurred over years, along with drastic changes yet not even realize it like this post, it makes me feel better that I made the post in the first place.

    Some are oblivious to how it was then and now. 
    People that have to spell out m-m-o-r-p-g and break down each word are the ones that need it.


    Rocket science, your thinking of Brain surgery.   

    Funny thing about both.  For the last year, I calibrate Side Winder Missiles for a living, and just had Major Brain surgery last week :)
    cameltosisKyleran
  • KumaponKumapon Member RarePosts: 1,345
    KidRiskXodicChildoftheShadowsSovrathKyleran[Deleted User]xD_GamingUngoodScotPalebane
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,135
    edited March 26
    Blah, misread, so my comment was inapplicable, and thus removed.
    Post edited by KnightFalz on
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,135
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.

    It's not part of the acronym, but grouping was certainly more emphasized early on, to the point it was heavily connected to the MMORPG genre for quite some time. It remains so for much of the more difficult content.

    That many consider grouping as a necessary component of these games is understandable given the history of the genre. If one considers high end content essential to their full enjoyment of a game, group play remains a major element today.

    So, as you say nothing in MMORPGs requires group play, with the caveat that one confines play to that which doesn't require groups.

    I personally do this most of the time and enjoy it well enough. However, I fully realize that by doing so I restrict myself from much of what such games offer, making my experience somewhat incomplete compared to my that of my more social fellows.

    While the second G is invisible it is still often tangible, even today.
  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,039
    edited March 26
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.
    See,
    When I read an un-thought out process of what happened, all the changes that occurred over years, along with drastic changes yet not even realize it like this post, it makes me feel better that I made the post in the first place.

    Some are oblivious to how it was then and now. 
    People that have to spell out m-m-o-r-p-g and break down each word are the ones that need it.


    Rocket science, your thinking of Brain surgery.   

    Funny thing about both.  For the last year, I calibrate Side Winder Missiles for a living, and just had Major Brain surgery last week :)
    No, hes quoting Ricky from trailer park boys. Worst case ontario he heard it somewhere else. Either way it's all water under the fridge.

    Also, hes right. The mmo portion only stands for a massive amount of people in a single shared reality. Not separate instances. Richard Gariott explained this on this very site years ago to Bill. Bill didnt really get it and still claimed there was an argument for League of Legends to be an MMO though. So some people will never fully understand, or perhaps they just struggle with english. Hell, many people still think the first word is "massive".
    Kyleran
  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,039
    Well OP, you're just wrong on one point. MMO is clear and cannot be argued. There is no second, third or fourth generation of what it means. It's a descriptor. It defines the genre its appended too. Its 3 words all with very clear meanings. This is why games like GW1, Vindictus, World of Tanks and many more arent mmos. Problem is you can tell people anything and they will believe it and repeat it like its gospel. Especially if you're the first to tell them. That's why to this day people still believe the 30 vs 30 (less than battlefield series) world of tanks game is an mmo. Its because they advertise it that way for the hype.

    If you disagree and think those games are mmos you're just wrong. And not by opinion or feelings either. Your wrong technically and factually as well as by definition.

    The only subjective part of what constitutes an MMO is what player concurrency in a shared zone is required. 500? 1000? 2000?

    And for the feeble minded let me clear up one argument you people always bring up. No, just because only 20 people are logged into a zone in an MMO despite it being able to hold 500, does not mean that games limited to 16 players are now mmos. 
    Kyleran
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,419
    edited March 26
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.

    It's not part of the acronym, but grouping was certainly more emphasized early on, to the point it was heavily connected to the MMORPG genre for quite some time. It remains so for much of the more difficult content.

    That many consider grouping as a necessary component of these games is understandable given the history of the genre. If one considers high end content essential to their full enjoyment of a game, group play remains a major element today.

    So, as you say nothing in MMORPGs requires group play, with the caveat that one confines play to that which doesn't require groups.

    I personally do this most of the time and enjoy it well enough. However, I fully realize that by doing so I restrict myself from much of what such games offer, making my experience somewhat incomplete compared to my that of my more social fellows.

    While the second G is invisible it is still often tangible, even today.
    Actually most MMORPGs, especially lately, have not gotten the grouping part right. They opt for rigid formulas of party size and composition and then take it out of the world into instances.

    It's in fact the ability to group massively that can set MMORPGs apart if they only leverage that feature that is unique to them. I've said many times that games like Rift, GW2 to some extent, Warhammer online and ESO in simplified static versions, have had the right ideas.

    Grouping should be commonplace and happen spontaneously in the open world without needing to make play dates and get ported away into private instances to do it. It should happen because there is an immediate need to do it when large event shit happens.

    Those zone invasions in Rift were IMO, the best that has yet been done in that respect. Other than that it really only happens as it should in large battle PvP in RvR games. MMORPG grouping should be big and epic because only they can do grouping like that.

    Still not a requirement for a game to be an MMORPG but it's so great when those massive group things happen that I really miss it in the games where it doesn't.
    “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
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 7,137
    Examples of MMORPGs..
    • EverQuest I & II
    • World of Warcraft
    • Final Fantasy XI & XIV
    • Guild Wars II
    • Elder Scrolls Online
    • Lord of the Rings Online
    Examples of COOP Online games..
    • Destiny I & II
    • Borderlands I, II & III
    • Division I & II
    • Anthem
    delete5230Kyleran

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,896
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.

    It's not part of the acronym, but grouping was certainly more emphasized early on, to the point it was heavily connected to the MMORPG genre for quite some time. It remains so for much of the more difficult content.

    That many consider grouping as a necessary component of these games is understandable given the history of the genre. If one considers high end content essential to their full enjoyment of a game, group play remains a major element today.

    So, as you say nothing in MMORPGs requires group play, with the caveat that one confines play to that which doesn't require groups.

    I personally do this most of the time and enjoy it well enough. However, I fully realize that by doing so I restrict myself from much of what such games offer, making my experience somewhat incomplete compared to my that of my more social fellows.

    While the second G is invisible it is still often tangible, even today.
    Many of us agree that that grouping is severely missed and a requirement for a good mmorpg, but it’s not a part if the definition and bringing it up only incites arguments for absolutely no reason. It’s pointless. Unless of course the goal is to troll of course. 
    Kyleran
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • KnightFalzKnightFalz Member RarePosts: 1,135
    madazz said:

    Also, hes right. The mmo portion only stands for a massive amount of people in a single shared reality. Not separate instances. Richard Gariott explained this on this very site years ago to Bill. Bill didnt really get it and still claimed there was an argument for League of Legends to be an MMO though. So some people will never fully understand, or perhaps they just struggle with english. Hell, many people still think the first word is "massive".
    While that may be RG's opinion, it isn't an intrinsic part of the definition. Nothing about massively multiplayer online requires a game to have a single, shared reality. Instancing is heavily used in the highest population MMORPGs today. To contend instancing makes these games other than what they are is absurd.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 13,317
    Features don't make up for community, its as simple as that. I find it odd that while we have been forced into social isolation in the real world and so many complain about that, in the world of MMOs social isolation is the norm.
    delete5230

     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

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    My definition is an RPG with a shared persistent online world.  Do you play a role, have a hard coded role or player story role? RPG. Does it always have a multiple online world log into barring technical issues?  Yes to both and it's a MMORPG.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 1,896
    madazz said:

    Also, hes right. The mmo portion only stands for a massive amount of people in a single shared reality. Not separate instances. Richard Gariott explained this on this very site years ago to Bill. Bill didnt really get it and still claimed there was an argument for League of Legends to be an MMO though. So some people will never fully understand, or perhaps they just struggle with english. Hell, many people still think the first word is "massive".
    While that may be RG's opinion, it isn't an intrinsic part of the definition. Nothing about massively multiplayer online requires a game to have a single, shared reality. Instancing is heavily used in the highest population MMORPGs today. To contend instancing makes these games other than what they are is absurd.
    Instancing, in the form of dungeons, isn’t the same thing as playing on a different shard entirely. The biggest “blur” would be mega servers and being able to swap shards on the fly. To me though, that’s close but ruins the immersion. I world rather each shard be a different piece of reality that cannot connect. 

    I don’t like instanced dungeons either but at least they are still the same servers cluster. 
    "Wake up, It's RNG, there is no such thing as 'rare'"
    - Ungood
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,603
    madazz said:

    Also, hes right. The mmo portion only stands for a massive amount of people in a single shared reality. Not separate instances. Richard Gariott explained this on this very site years ago to Bill. Bill didnt really get it and still claimed there was an argument for League of Legends to be an MMO though. So some people will never fully understand, or perhaps they just struggle with english. Hell, many people still think the first word is "massive".
    While that may be RG's opinion, it isn't an intrinsic part of the definition. Nothing about massively multiplayer online requires a game to have a single, shared reality. Instancing is heavily used in the highest population MMORPGs today. To contend instancing makes these games other than what they are is absurd.

    Its about the word "multiplayer"

    To be multiplayer, you have to be able to interact/play with another person synchronously (at the same time), which means you have to be in the same game world. If there is no opportunity to interact with each other, because you are in different instances, then you are not counted towards the multiplayer cap.


    Thats why a game like LotRO, which can support 1000 players in the same environment (the non-instanced world) is an MMO, whilst Mario Kart 8, which can support 1000 players in different 12 man races, is not an MMO.
    IselinPo_gg
  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,210
    edited March 27
    Thats why a game like LotRO, which can support 1000 players in the same environment (the non-instanced world) is an MMO, whilst Mario Kart 8, which can support 1000 players in different 12 man races, is not an MMO.
    I believe that's just a theoretical cap, they used to use Weatherstock as a stress-test, but even there I doubt the 1000 was ever reached... (my shot above was from the Weatherstock in '16, which had 600+ players concurrently as the peak)

    But on general I agree.

    (ed. it doesn't mean LotRO doesn't have enough players :) it uses layers, for performance. Normally you never have more than 100 players at the same place, the game just creates a new layer on top. At Weatherstock the devs turn this off, to see how well the servers handle the load)
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,355
    Iselin said:
    It really isn't rocket surgery:

    • Massively multiplayer: many, many players online sharing the same game world simultaneously. How many, you say? IDK but "massively multiplayer" should be a clue. That's more than 4 or 64 in case you're wondering.
    • Online: duh! Your empty living room while you play is all you need to know about that. OK... maybe your SO, kids, cats and dogs are there too but are they also playing? Huh? Huh?
    • Role Playing Game: you start as a lowly wimp and fine tune your character into a mean, lean, killing machine... or craft and chat in a field of dandelions surrounded by unicorns if that's your thing (yuch!)

    Notice there is no extra G in there for grouping. They're not MMOGRPGs. Grouping with nice people (getting harder and harder to find those online these days) is cool and all but not a requirement. Being there is enough.

    It's not part of the acronym, but grouping was certainly more emphasized early on, to the point it was heavily connected to the MMORPG genre for quite some time. It remains so for much of the more difficult content.

    That many consider grouping as a necessary component of these games is understandable given the history of the genre. If one considers high end content essential to their full enjoyment of a game, group play remains a major element today.

    So, as you say nothing in MMORPGs requires group play, with the caveat that one confines play to that which doesn't require groups.

    I personally do this most of the time and enjoy it well enough. However, I fully realize that by doing so I restrict myself from much of what such games offer, making my experience somewhat incomplete compared to my that of my more social fellows.

    While the second G is invisible it is still often tangible, even today.
    Many of us agree that that grouping is severely missed and a requirement for a good mmorpg, but it’s not a part if the definition and bringing it up only incites arguments for absolutely no reason. It’s pointless. Unless of course the goal is to troll of course. 
    Oh snap, he's on to us, quick, everyone get back under the bridge.

     >:) 

    "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: 36,355
    First, I want to welcome back @Gdemami, missed your LOLs bro.

    @delete5230, I no longer have the will to debate what an MMORPG is or was, nowadays I just find a game I enjoy and stay with it.

    Now, while FO76 doesn't really require people to group up you'll never get thru the likes of Vault 94 without a well coordinated and full four man team.

    I havent yet, not found the right crew nor do the rewards really appear to be worth the reward being largely cosmetic in nature.

    But if you want to socialize with others, there has been no better game for me in the last 15 years, not even EVE, consider giving it a try, about to get very busy once the new expansion releases April 11th, but be warned, it likely will be a shitshow for several months to come.

    "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






  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Kyleran said:
    First, I want to welcome back @Gdemami, missed your LOLs bro.

    @delete5230, I no longer have the will to debate what an MMORPG is or was, nowadays I just find a game I enjoy and stay with it.

    Now, while FO76 doesn't really require people to group up you'll never get thru the likes of Vault 94 without a well coordinated and full four man team.

    I havent yet, not found the right crew nor do the rewards really appear to be worth the reward being largely cosmetic in nature.

    But if you want to socialize with others, there has been no better game for me in the last 15 years, not even EVE, consider giving it a try, about to get very busy once the new expansion releases April 11th, but be warned, it likely will be a shitshow for several months to come.
    Seems like survive games do MMORPG better than MMORPG do sometimes.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,221
    Well.. for me.. It's just not an MMO, untill someone says "OMG L2P, this Game is EZPZ"
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,512
    Kyleran said:
    First, I want to welcome back @Gdemami, missed your LOLs bro.

    @delete5230, I no longer have the will to debate what an MMORPG is or was, nowadays I just find a game I enjoy and stay with it.

    Now, while FO76 doesn't really require people to group up you'll never get thru the likes of Vault 94 without a well coordinated and full four man team.

    I havent yet, not found the right crew nor do the rewards really appear to be worth the reward being largely cosmetic in nature.

    But if you want to socialize with others, there has been no better game for me in the last 15 years, not even EVE, consider giving it a try, about to get very busy once the new expansion releases April 11th, but be warned, it likely will be a shitshow for several months to come.
    Seems like survive games do MMORPG better than MMORPG do sometimes.
    I prefer single player games or mmorpg's, hate anything PvP or competitive. 

    We all have our taste...... Playing around with DDO, lightly but soon to dive in :)
    Ungood
  • MMOExposedMMOExposed Member RarePosts: 7,115
    MMORPG term has become vague enough for any online game to be called a MMO. So I created two terms to define it in detail. 

    Soft Cap multiplayer Online Game-
    this is the traditional definition of a MMO, being that the game is multiplayer based but not built on a specific cap on the number of players but has a soft cap based on server limits of course. Games like World of Warcraft fit this since players on the server play on the same maps and can meet up in the same location if they want, but would strain the server.

    Hard Cap multiplayer Online Game-
    This is a traditional console multiplayer game that features Online options, like Call of Duty or Battlefield which has hard capped fixed size groups per map. IE: 20 vs 20 or 32 vs 32 or 5 vs 5, etc. Its a fixed number of players, that if that number was altered could mess up the gameplay. For example, 32 vs 5 (37 Total players) Call of Duty match would not work. This is why its Hard Capped. 

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.