"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
So what if it is an oxymoron. It would not be the first or the last when meaning of some part of a label is ignored.
You are still arguing based on interpretation of the actual words in MMO. Think of it as just 3 letters meaning nothing but a group of games that website operators, reviewers and industry people are using .. then you will understand how the word "massively" is utterly irrelevant.
The skinny fat people who are short and tall would nod and shake their heads.
You fail at acronyms, words, meanings, and oxymorons. The words have meanings and yet your saying the core defining aspect "massively" is irrelevant. That's like saying Self Contained in SCUBA is irrelevant. That's like Willy Wonka being irrelevant in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
What your saying is utterly absurd, completely ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest.
Anyway continue trolling by all means...
And other language usage (like you brought up SCUBA) is irrelevant to the use of MMOs .. just like web has multiple meanings ... i don't see spiders getting upset that the word "web" is not to describe internet sites.
That's not analogous to your argument. If you had claimed that, in fact, the web (internet) and a web (that a spider lives in) were the same thing, then it would be analogous. And also, ridiculous.
In fact, your argument goes a step further. It actually claims that world wide web (internet) and web (that a spider lives in) are one and the same because popular usage refers to them both simply as a/the "web."
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Subject title is not indicative of the content. So I will leave the the nonsensical title alone and go with what the content was.
What is the fate of the MMORPG genre. Well this has been debated to death hasn't it? MMORPGs will continue to evolve as they always have done. So the only thing that is remaining the same, is change. This has always been, and always will be. Is it good? no. Is it bad? no. It just is.
So WoW dropped some subs (to the pre expansion level, whoopty do), there's still tens of millions of people that play MMORPGs. Why does the genre need to change? This is just debating for the sake of debating, and over a topic that assumes a false conclusion: that there is a shrinking market of MMORPG players.
Good day to you sir. You have invented a "problem" and proposed only two polarizing results caused by said problem. I wish everyone would play games that are fun for them, and leave the rest alone.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane. And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes. Hurt - Wars
When MMOs first became a thing, online play, whether co-op or adversarial was very rare and "Massively Multiplayer" was used to differentiate these types of games from the other common online games, FPS. It was a pretty obvious distinction and there was little overlap between the two types of games in fan base.
But that has changed in these past 15 years or so and now just about every game of every type has multiplayer online features and the player "mainstream" plays all the different types. Players who zealously play only one type of game are pretty rare birds.
As far as this site goes, that horse left the barn many months ago. It's MORPG.COM in everything but name and even the RPG part is not a requirement... so maybe MO.COM would be even more fitting.... I like it... "Mo"
lol, they should change the name to Game.com or G.com. Because they're also adding non-mutiplayer games to the mix.
why bother though? Isn't it simpler just to let people know that mmorpg.com means games.com ... the mmorp is just legacy issues.
What is the fate of the MMORPG genre. Well this has been debated to death hasn't it? MMORPGs will continue to evolve as they always have done. So the only thing that is remaining the same, is change. This has always been, and always will be. Is it good? no. Is it bad? no. It just is.
So WoW dropped some subs (to the pre expansion level, whoopty do), there's still tens of millions of people that play MMORPGs. Why does the genre need to change? This is just debating for the sake of debating, and over a topic that assumes a false conclusion: that there is a shrinking market of MMORPG players.
I am not asking "why the genre need to change?". I am asking "is the genre changing?"
Since MMOs now include MOBAs, and games like World of Tank, won't you agree that it is changing ... for whatever the reasons? In fact, didn't you yourself said that "the only thing that is reaming the same, is change"?
In fact, almost 60% voted for the second option, and think that the broadening is going to be continued.
When MMOs first became a thing, online play, whether co-op or adversarial was very rare and "Massively Multiplayer" was used to differentiate these types of games from the other common online games, FPS. It was a pretty obvious distinction and there was little overlap between the two types of games in fan base.
But that has changed in these past 15 years or so and now just about every game of every type has multiplayer online features and the player "mainstream" plays all the different types. Players who zealously play only one type of game are pretty rare birds.
As far as this site goes, that horse left the barn many months ago. It's MORPG.COM in everything but name and even the RPG part is not a requirement... so maybe MO.COM would be even more fitting.... I like it... "Mo"
lol, they should change the name to Game.com or G.com. Because they're also adding non-mutiplayer games to the mix.
Yeah... but the G.com domain is probably already taken by a site dedicated to hard to find anatomical nerve bundles and Gamespot has got dibs on the "G" logo
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
When MMOs first became a thing, online play, whether co-op or adversarial was very rare and "Massively Multiplayer" was used to differentiate these types of games from the other common online games, FPS. It was a pretty obvious distinction and there was little overlap between the two types of games in fan base.
But that has changed in these past 15 years or so and now just about every game of every type has multiplayer online features and the player "mainstream" plays all the different types. Players who zealously play only one type of game are pretty rare birds.
As far as this site goes, that horse left the barn many months ago. It's MORPG.COM in everything but name and even the RPG part is not a requirement... so maybe MO.COM would be even more fitting.... I like it... "Mo"
lol, they should change the name to Game.com or G.com. Because they're also adding non-mutiplayer games to the mix.
Yeah... but the G.com domain is probably already taken by a site dedicated to hard to find anatomical nerve bundles and Gamespot has got dibs on the "G" logo
what about "broadened-MMO.com" .. so people know it is not going to be the old restrictive set of MMOs, and the term would include almost anything.
When MMOs first became a thing, online play, whether co-op or adversarial was very rare and "Massively Multiplayer" was used to differentiate these types of games from the other common online games, FPS. It was a pretty obvious distinction and there was little overlap between the two types of games in fan base.
But that has changed in these past 15 years or so and now just about every game of every type has multiplayer online features and the player "mainstream" plays all the different types. Players who zealously play only one type of game are pretty rare birds.
As far as this site goes, that horse left the barn many months ago. It's MORPG.COM in everything but name and even the RPG part is not a requirement... so maybe MO.COM would be even more fitting.... I like it... "Mo"
lol, they should change the name to Game.com or G.com. Because they're also adding non-mutiplayer games to the mix.
Yeah... but the G.com domain is probably already taken by a site dedicated to hard to find anatomical nerve bundles and Gamespot has got dibs on the "G" logo
what about "broadened-MMO.com" .. so people know it is not going to be the old restrictive set of MMOs, and the term would include almost anything.
Nope. Doesn't cover it. Mitbbs1989 has a point. The Witcher 3 review is in progress and the only O part of that is the digital download, patching, DLCs and googling walkthroughs for tough fights.... although, come to think of it, those are pretty significant online activities - more meaningful in the grand scheme of things than many other online activities in MOs such as item linking in chat, goofy dancing and character title selection... hmmm... I'll have to think more.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
When MMOs first became a thing, online play, whether co-op or adversarial was very rare and "Massively Multiplayer" was used to differentiate these types of games from the other common online games, FPS. It was a pretty obvious distinction and there was little overlap between the two types of games in fan base.
But that has changed in these past 15 years or so and now just about every game of every type has multiplayer online features and the player "mainstream" plays all the different types. Players who zealously play only one type of game are pretty rare birds.
As far as this site goes, that horse left the barn many months ago. It's MORPG.COM in everything but name and even the RPG part is not a requirement... so maybe MO.COM would be even more fitting.... I like it... "Mo"
lol, they should change the name to Game.com or G.com. Because they're also adding non-mutiplayer games to the mix.
Yeah... but the G.com domain is probably already taken by a site dedicated to hard to find anatomical nerve bundles and Gamespot has got dibs on the "G" logo
what about "broadened-MMO.com" .. so people know it is not going to be the old restrictive set of MMOs, and the term would include almost anything.
Nope. Doesn't cover it. Mitbbs1989 has a point. The Witcher 3 review is in progress and the only O part of that is the digital download, patching, DLCs and googling walkthroughs for tough fights.... although, come to think of it, those are pretty significant online activities - more meaningful in the grand scheme of things than many other online activities in MOs such as item linking in chat, goofy dancing and character title selection... hmmm... I'll have to think more.
Why don't they just call Witcher 3 a MMO and then everything will fit. It has some online game modes, right?
because it's not an MMO would be my guess...That's a pretty good reason.
They could call it an MMO but then they would be wrong.
When I heard that the sermon on the mount singled out cheese makers (or any manufacturer of dairy products) for a special blessing, I decided that I too am a cheese maker although I've never done it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
because it's not an MMO would be my guess...That's a pretty good reason.
They could call it an MMO but then they would be wrong.
The same as calling World of Tank a MMO, and few cares?
WoT is absolutely 100% an MMO. In fact, considering it has many thousands more players than most games on this site, it fits the definition even better.
WoT is not an MMORPG, but it is an MMO.
Witcher III is an RPG, but it's not an MMO.
I sometimes think that people throw these acronyms around without even realizing what the individual words mean.
MMO is not short for MMORPG. I mean, ffs, it's already short for Massively Multiplayer Online. It's not a shortening of a shortening. Even if Mark Wahlberg were to star in a movie about it called "The Shortening", it still wouldn't make it right. Although it could be a movie about a pastry baker, so I'm torn about it now.
How is 15v15 team death match in World of Tanks a MMO when 32v32 team death match in Battlefield isn't?
Then there is Planetside 2 the obvious MMO example... WoT is as much a MMO as Call of Duty, Robocraft, Hawken, Mech Warrior, Chivalry, Unreal Tournament and any other online game with team death match and similar player numbers. Which is to say WoT is not a MMO at all because 15v15 death match is just multiplayer.
Not that any of that matters here at MMORPG.com where we get single player game coverage.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
How is 15v15 team death match in World of Tanks a MMO when 32v32 team death match in Battlefield isn't?
Then there is Planetside 2 the obvious MMO example... WoT is as much a MMO as Call of Duty, Robocraft, Hawken, Mech Warrior, Chivalry, Unreal Tournament and any other online game with team death match and similar player numbers. Which is to say WoT is not a MMO at all because 15v15 death match is just multiplayer.
Not that any of that matters here at MMORPG.com where we get single player game coverage.
Don't ask me. I am the first to point out that the broadening of the label MMO is not driven by logic and reasoning. But you do see the reviewers calling WoT a MMO, and even listed as such here, and many other sites, right?
In fact, i would not be surprised if some of the more online shooter games are going to be called MMOs .. like Destiny (didn't massively tried to do that?).
How is 15v15 team death match in World of Tanks a MMO when 32v32 team death match in Battlefield isn't?
Then there is Planetside 2 the obvious MMO example... WoT is as much a MMO as Call of Duty, Robocraft, Hawken, Mech Warrior, Chivalry, Unreal Tournament and any other online game with team death match and similar player numbers. Which is to say WoT is not a MMO at all because 15v15 death match is just multiplayer.
Not that any of that matters here at MMORPG.com where we get single player game coverage.
Don't ask me. I am the first to point out that the broadening of the label MMO is not driven by logic and reasoning. But you do see the reviewers calling WoT a MMO, and even listed as such here, and many other sites, right?
In fact, i would not be surprised if some of the more online shooter games are going to be called MMOs .. like Destiny (didn't massively tried to do that?).
This is the fundamental difference some people use logic and reason to classify MMOs, some do not.
If broadening the label involves abandoning logic and reason is one really broadening the label or just abandoning reason and logic?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I am not asking "why the genre need to change?". I am asking "is the genre changing?"
Since MMOs now include MOBAs, and games like World of Tank, won't you agree that it is changing ... for whatever the reasons? In fact, didn't you yourself said that "the only thing that is reaming the same, is change"?
In fact, almost 60% voted for the second option, and think that the broadening is going to be continued.
MMOs don't include MOBAs.
They're MOBAs. Not MMOBAs. The M and the O in the acronym literally stand for Multiplayer Online, and "massively" isn't present for a reason.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I disagree with Axehilt on a lot of things as well, but he is dead right in this case.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
As much as I enjoy watching Nilden pummel a troll over and over again, I don't understand why some of you still haven't put said troll on Block like the rest of us. He thrives on your attention and you are simply indulging him and simultaneously shitting up every thread he enters.
While all the arguments, post, and theories have every right to state there opinion on the subject. I think everyone should read the articles done by Bill Murphy
How is 15v15 team death match in World of Tanks a MMO when 32v32 team death match in Battlefield isn't?
Then there is Planetside 2 the obvious MMO example... WoT is as much a MMO as Call of Duty, Robocraft, Hawken, Mech Warrior, Chivalry, Unreal Tournament and any other online game with team death match and similar player numbers. Which is to say WoT is not a MMO at all because 15v15 death match is just multiplayer.
Not that any of that matters here at MMORPG.com where we get single player game coverage.
Don't ask me. I am the first to point out that the broadening of the label MMO is not driven by logic and reasoning. But you do see the reviewers calling WoT a MMO, and even listed as such here, and many other sites, right?
In fact, i would not be surprised if some of the more online shooter games are going to be called MMOs .. like Destiny (didn't massively tried to do that?).
This is the fundamental difference some people use logic and reason to classify MMOs, some do not.
If broadening the label involves abandoning logic and reason is one really broadening the label or just abandoning reason and logic?
May be you should ask the reviewers who classify WoT as a MMO, and the site operators of Massively (or their writer) or try to frame Destiny as a MMO, or all the MMO site operators who put MOBAs on a MMO list.
And it is not one or zero right? May be they just abandon logic & reason in this instance between they don't feel the label MMO is important enough, and they still apply logic & reason to other stuff?
While all the arguments, post, and theories have every right to state there opinion on the subject. I think everyone should read the articles done by Bill Murphy
Comments
Hilarious.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Ha!
Well frickin' done.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
That's not analogous to your argument. If you had claimed that, in fact, the web (internet) and a web (that a spider lives in) were the same thing, then it would be analogous. And also, ridiculous.
In fact, your argument goes a step further. It actually claims that world wide web (internet) and web (that a spider lives in) are one and the same because popular usage refers to them both simply as a/the "web."
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Subject title is not indicative of the content. So I will leave the the nonsensical title alone and go with what the content was.
What is the fate of the MMORPG genre. Well this has been debated to death hasn't it? MMORPGs will continue to evolve as they always have done. So the only thing that is remaining the same, is change. This has always been, and always will be. Is it good? no. Is it bad? no. It just is.
So WoW dropped some subs (to the pre expansion level, whoopty do), there's still tens of millions of people that play MMORPGs. Why does the genre need to change? This is just debating for the sake of debating, and over a topic that assumes a false conclusion: that there is a shrinking market of MMORPG players.
Good day to you sir. You have invented a "problem" and proposed only two polarizing results caused by said problem. I wish everyone would play games that are fun for them, and leave the rest alone.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
why bother though? Isn't it simpler just to let people know that mmorpg.com means games.com ... the mmorp is just legacy issues.
I am not asking "why the genre need to change?". I am asking "is the genre changing?"
Since MMOs now include MOBAs, and games like World of Tank, won't you agree that it is changing ... for whatever the reasons? In fact, didn't you yourself said that "the only thing that is reaming the same, is change"?
In fact, almost 60% voted for the second option, and think that the broadening is going to be continued.
Yeah... but the G.com domain is probably already taken by a site dedicated to hard to find anatomical nerve bundles and Gamespot has got dibs on the "G" logo
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
what about "broadened-MMO.com" .. so people know it is not going to be the old restrictive set of MMOs, and the term would include almost anything.
Nope. Doesn't cover it. Mitbbs1989 has a point. The Witcher 3 review is in progress and the only O part of that is the digital download, patching, DLCs and googling walkthroughs for tough fights.... although, come to think of it, those are pretty significant online activities - more meaningful in the grand scheme of things than many other online activities in MOs such as item linking in chat, goofy dancing and character title selection... hmmm... I'll have to think more.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Why don't they just call Witcher 3 a MMO and then everything will fit. It has some online game modes, right?
No it's completely single player but don't let facts, reason, or logic stand in not your way because not you never has before.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/When I heard that the sermon on the mount singled out cheese makers (or any manufacturer of dairy products) for a special blessing, I decided that I too am a cheese maker although I've never done it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The same as calling World of Tank a MMO, and few cares?
WoT is absolutely 100% an MMO. In fact, considering it has many thousands more players than most games on this site, it fits the definition even better.
WoT is not an MMORPG, but it is an MMO.
Witcher III is an RPG, but it's not an MMO.
I sometimes think that people throw these acronyms around without even realizing what the individual words mean.
MMO is not short for MMORPG. I mean, ffs, it's already short for Massively Multiplayer Online. It's not a shortening of a shortening. Even if Mark Wahlberg were to star in a movie about it called "The Shortening", it still wouldn't make it right. Although it could be a movie about a pastry baker, so I'm torn about it now.
How is 15v15 team death match in World of Tanks a MMO when 32v32 team death match in Battlefield isn't?
Then there is Planetside 2 the obvious MMO example... WoT is as much a MMO as Call of Duty, Robocraft, Hawken, Mech Warrior, Chivalry, Unreal Tournament and any other online game with team death match and similar player numbers. Which is to say WoT is not a MMO at all because 15v15 death match is just multiplayer.
Not that any of that matters here at MMORPG.com where we get single player game coverage.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Don't ask me. I am the first to point out that the broadening of the label MMO is not driven by logic and reasoning. But you do see the reviewers calling WoT a MMO, and even listed as such here, and many other sites, right?
In fact, i would not be surprised if some of the more online shooter games are going to be called MMOs .. like Destiny (didn't massively tried to do that?).
This is the fundamental difference some people use logic and reason to classify MMOs, some do not.
If broadening the label involves abandoning logic and reason is one really broadening the label or just abandoning reason and logic?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/MMOs don't include MOBAs.
They're MOBAs. Not MMOBAs. The M and the O in the acronym literally stand for Multiplayer Online, and "massively" isn't present for a reason.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't agree with a lot of things Axehilt says but on this it's 100%.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
While all the arguments, post, and theories have every right to state there opinion on the subject. I think everyone should read the articles done by Bill Murphy
http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/8277/MMO-RPG.html
http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/9019/You-Got-Your-RPG-in-my-Sports-Game.html
In these 2 articles, he describes the scenarios of what has been discussed about the subject MMO and RPG.
May be you should ask the reviewers who classify WoT as a MMO, and the site operators of Massively (or their writer) or try to frame Destiny as a MMO, or all the MMO site operators who put MOBAs on a MMO list.
And it is not one or zero right? May be they just abandon logic & reason in this instance between they don't feel the label MMO is important enough, and they still apply logic & reason to other stuff?
and i quote "what it means to be an MMORPG has changed so much from the early part of this century that we must change with it or perish."
So i guess that is the reason of broadening the usage .. in this case MMORPG, not just MMO.