Howdy, Stranger!

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

The dawn of MMORPG

1235

Comments

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Tasslehoff35
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ikcin
    For the official statistics MOBAs are MMOs. What you think is not so important, because data shows very clear how the MMORPGs are losing players cause games with competitive play. If you want to argue that, well find some numbers please. 

    https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/

    Clearly MOBAs are classified as MMOs by superdata .. which incidentally actually has data, as opposed to people here just having opinions.

    And as long as they are clear about what they are including for MMOs, i don't see a problem since there is no confusion.

     

    So superdata is the "official" source we are using?  The clear definition of each has no say?  And how many times have you seen a person bring up superdata info to a discussion to push their game?  It usually doesn't end very well for the one pushing.  Again he said "official" stat,  sorry superdata isn't "official" anything.  

    at least it is an industry source .. which is more "official" than opinions of random people on the internet.

  • Tasslehoff35Tasslehoff35 Member UncommonPosts: 962
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Tasslehoff35
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ikcin
    For the official statistics MOBAs are MMOs. What you think is not so important, because data shows very clear how the MMORPGs are losing players cause games with competitive play. If you want to argue that, well find some numbers please. 

    https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/

    Clearly MOBAs are classified as MMOs by superdata .. which incidentally actually has data, as opposed to people here just having opinions.

    And as long as they are clear about what they are including for MMOs, i don't see a problem since there is no confusion.

     

    So superdata is the "official" source we are using?  The clear definition of each has no say?  And how many times have you seen a person bring up superdata info to a discussion to push their game?  It usually doesn't end very well for the one pushing.  Again he said "official" stat,  sorry superdata isn't "official" anything.  

    at least it is an industry source .. which is more "official" than opinions of random people on the internet.

    Really?  To go the previous page little buddy I posted the "official " definition of each one.  Now Google yourself to an moba site, is love to see where they call themselves an mmo...oh wait they don't.  But for some reason these random special snowflakes in the internet need to create their own definitions to feel special.  

     

    I could google countless sites that when comparing the top mmos only compare mmos and sites that compare moba only compare moba.  Now I could copy those thinks and say they are "official " like you are doing.  

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Tasslehoff35

    I could google countless sites that when comparing the top mmos only compare mmos and sites that compare moba only compare moba.  Now I could copy those thinks and say they are "official " like you are doing.  

    sure .. do so ..

    so all you are saying is that people don't agree ... so what is new?

    I can also post lots of reviews that say WoT is a mmo too. It does not look like people care that much about the word "massively" and would much rather to go with convenience.

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Tasslehoff35
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by ikcin
    For the official statistics MOBAs are MMOs. What you think is not so important, because data shows very clear how the MMORPGs are losing players cause games with competitive play. If you want to argue that, well find some numbers please. 

    https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/

    Clearly MOBAs are classified as MMOs by superdata .. which incidentally actually has data, as opposed to people here just having opinions.

    And as long as they are clear about what they are including for MMOs, i don't see a problem since there is no confusion.

     

    So superdata is the "official" source we are using?  The clear definition of each has no say?  And how many times have you seen a person bring up superdata info to a discussion to push their game?  It usually doesn't end very well for the one pushing.  Again he said "official" stat,  sorry superdata isn't "official" anything.  

    at least it is an industry source .. which is more "official" than opinions of random people on the internet.

    SuperData is (probably) fine for the data they're showing.  I don't imagine their stats are flawless, but they're going to be reasonably accurate. Certainly I welcome anyone to post data showing where they've been provably wrong as I have no particular loyalty to them.

    SuperData is not fine for the categorizations they use.  They're not part of the game industry, so calling them an industry source is misleading.  They're part of an industry, but it's not games. They don't produce games and it's a safe guess most of their employees aren't gamers.  Which is why they make the most basic mistake in how they categorize games.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • zekeofevzekeofev Member UncommonPosts: 240

    Hey if we throw out massively that means the acronym does not matter anymore!

     

    That means we CAN use the arguments that things outside of that acronym help define what an MMO actually is...such as:

     

    Persistent World

    Open ended world objectives

    Server Events (either player caused or GM ran)

    Systems to encourage socialization/banding together against harsh world

    Player actions impacting other players (PVP, law/rule change systems)

    Content that requires group/team effort to pass

    Death Penalty (Losing one battle impacts future battles...more meaning to every battle rather than a lobby that resets to a similar state every match)

     

    It is funny, often the same people in this thread that want to accept the new definition said that MMOs should not be defined by some or all of the above characteristics because they are not part of the MMO acronym. Thanks for clearing that up!

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    SuperData is not fine for the categorizations they use.  They're not part of the game industry, so calling them an industry source is misleading.  They're part of an industry, but it's not games. They don't produce games and it's a safe guess most of their employees aren't gamers.  Which is why they make the most basic mistake in how they categorize games.

    so? Categorization is just definitions. There is no right or wrong. If they categorize MMO this way .. is the industry going to ignore their numbers? Clearly not (since they are often cited).

    Is the categorization clear so the communication is unambigious .. certainly.

    So aside from some people are complaining on a forum, what is the problem?

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by zekeofev

    Hey if we throw out massively that means the acronym does not matter anymore!

     

    Yeah ... MMO really does not matter that much. Most people will just play games fun to them ... probably whether it is called a MMO or not matter very little to them.

    In fact, the "massively" gameplay is increasingly marginalized anyway. Most WOW gameplay is not massively. Most dungeon runs are not massively. Most raids are not massively.

    Yes, it is "massively" in Orgrimmar waiting for a group and chat .. but so is chatting on a big chat room. It is really nothing special.

  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,896
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Axehilt

    SuperData is not fine for the categorizations they use.  They're not part of the game industry, so calling them an industry source is misleading.  They're part of an industry, but it's not games. They don't produce games and it's a safe guess most of their employees aren't gamers.  Which is why they make the most basic mistake in how they categorize games.

    so? Categorization is just definitions. There is no right or wrong. If they categorize MMO this way .. is the industry going to ignore their numbers? Clearly not (since they are often cited).

    Is the categorization clear so the communication is unambigious .. certainly.

    So aside from some people are complaining on a forum, what is the problem?

     

    Common sense, logic, reason, reality they all present problems when Superdata lists Hearthstone a 1v1 game as a MMO. The good thing is those things don't prevent you from being intellectually dishonest and propagating this snake oil but I know you like to move the goal posts to something not as blatantly dishonest as calling a 1v1 game a MMO so maybe you should mention World of Tanks.

    Not like that matters when you admit the M for "massively" one of the key defining aspects of MMOs is irrelevant. I'm guessing much like myself many people here just want to correct the blatant dishonest lie your spreading but it's so obvious it really shouldn't need to be said.

    I also refuse to incite any claim of idiocy or stupidity on your part. You know exactly what your doing and how intellectually dishonest it is. You enjoy forum pvp and trolling.

    Then to top it all off if your accused of spreading, propagating and presenting this misuse of the term MMO you say it's not you and point at websites on the internet as the real culprits dispite your 22k posts and constant persistence on the topic.

    That and thanks to pretty much everyone with an ounce of common sense holding the view that you and superdata are utterly wrong we have at least 5 threads going where people are constantly pointing out that your wrong. Derailing the threads and beating dead horses like it's going out of style.

    I think instead of Jean-Luc and his people should stop answering you post in one of the many threads you popped in to ruin maybe you should just stop ruining threads with your insistent nonsense.

    I'll say it politely too. Please stop ruining threads with dead horses.

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    so? Categorization is just definitions. There is no right or wrong. If they categorize MMO this way .. is the industry going to ignore their numbers? Clearly not (since they are often cited).

    Is the categorization clear so the communication is unambigious .. certainly.

    So aside from some people are complaining on a forum, what is the problem? 

    Right, categorization is definitions.  And that's why there is a right and wrong.  If you look at a blue shirt and call it yellow, you are wrong.  If you describe your bicycle as having Four Wheel Drive, you are wrong.  And if you describe a game with non-massive multiplayer as MMO, you are wrong.

    Why do you think it's relevant whether the industry ignores their numbers? We're discussing their incorrect categorization.

    It's not a huge problem unless you want to avoid being the guy who calls blue things yellow and claims your bicycle has 4W drive.  People generally try not to be wrong about easy-to-understand things.  There's no benefit to being wrong, and the benefit to being right is conversation can ascend above the bowels of semantic discussion.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • pkpkpkpkpkpk Member UncommonPosts: 203

    All these ideas have been explored. There is not--and will not be--anything new to see. The next trend will be "niche" games, cheap arthouse efforts--like DotA 2--that aspire to do nothing more than to appease a minority of cultish gamers. The idea of a generally good game no longer works, for the reason that people like you--who claim that everything is "out of date"--have pushed expectations of games beyond sane limits. You say there is a game out there that you like, but that you don't play because of its appearance, instead preferring to post on forums and wait for a prettier game with the same ideas. For once I forgive developers--when they decline to invest in a game, for someone who is so particular as you. Hundreds of MMOs not good enough? We need more?

    For myself, I admit--and freely--I do not want a new game. I like old games--the old style. Save your millions of dollars--invest a few thousand--; restore a classic game. This is sanity.  Anything else--these are the modern vagaries of the fickle gamer today. The next time, when, as you say, you "forget everything you know about RPGs", take this into consideration--in your "broad", "open-minded" perspective--that games do not need to be replaced every few years, and that an industry that regards old things as outdated, is an unhealthy, misguided one, serving the misguided themselves' desires.

  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,205
    Old games have issues too. Yes, they have better gameplay than many new titles, but they are far from perfect. So there is always a place for new and better things. If you compare TW3 with any RPG till now, well TW3 is better. 
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by pkpkpk

    All these ideas have been explored. There is not--and will not be--anything new to see. The next trend will be "niche" games, cheap arthouse efforts--like DotA 2--that aspire to do nothing more than to appease a minority of cultish gamers. The idea of a generally good game no longer works, for the reason that people like you--who claim that everything is "out of date"--have pushed expectations of games beyond sane limits. You say there is a game out there that you like, but that you don't play because of its appearance, instead preferring to post on forums and wait for a prettier game with the same ideas. For once I forgive developers--when they decline to invest in a game, for someone who is so particular as you. Hundreds of MMOs not good enough? We need more?

    For myself, I admit--and freely--I do not want a new game. I like old games--the old style. Save your millions of dollars--invest a few thousand--; restore a classic game. This is sanity.  Anything else--these are the modern vagaries of the fickle gamer today. The next time, when, as you say, you "forget everything you know about RPGs", take this into consideration--in your "broad", "open-minded" perspective--that games do not need to be replaced every few years, and that an industry that regards old things as outdated, is an unhealthy, misguided one, serving the misguided themselves' desires.

    Restoring classic games costs way more than "a few thousand", and ironically your example (DOTA 2) was a restored classic which acts as evidence that rehashes do worse than great games (LoL.)

    How many games have you played in the last 3 years?  Probably more than one.  So probably what you do and what you say are very different things.  (And what you're doing -- spending money -- speaks louder than a forum post.)  The fact is games are consumed entertainment.  No game remains interesting forever due to the underlying nature of how games are enjoyed by players.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    so? Categorization is just definitions. There is no right or wrong. If they categorize MMO this way .. is the industry going to ignore their numbers? Clearly not (since they are often cited).

    Is the categorization clear so the communication is unambigious .. certainly.

    So aside from some people are complaining on a forum, what is the problem? 

    Right, categorization is definitions.  And that's why there is a right and wrong.  If you look at a blue shirt and call it yellow, you are wrong. 

    uh? How can definition is wrong.

    If that color is called yellow by some, and blue by other .. most you can say is that they don't agree on the definition.

    If all the yellow items are called blue .. everyone will still be communicating fine.

    In fact, in Chinese, the yellow color is called a different label ... i don't see a problem. It is only about if people agree.

    Don't tell me you think the chinese use the wrong label on color.

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    uh? How can definition is wrong.

    If that color is called yellow by some, and blue by other .. most you can say is that they don't agree on the definition.

    If all the yellow items are called blue .. everyone will still be communicating fine.

    In fact, in Chinese, the yellow color is called a different label ... i don't see a problem. It is only about if people agree.

    Don't tell me you think the chinese use the wrong label on color. 

    The word is defined.  You're objectively wrong if your use of a word doesn't match the agreed-upon definition.

    Someone calling the shirt yellow is wrong if the shirt is blue, because the definition is established.

    The chinese word for blue is the chinese word for blue.  It's a different language.  If you used the chinese word for yellow to describe something blue, you would also be wrong.

    Logically we should want definitions to become stronger and more reliably defined over time, only changing when there's sufficient reason to.  

    When the abacus was being phased out, nobody insisted on calling slide rules "abacuses".  This is because we don't care if a word falls into misuse but we do care if two different concepts become hard to distinguish.

    The entire point of creating "MMO" as an acronym prefix in the first place was to distinguish massive multiplayer games from non-massive ones.

    So by every account of reason and logic, you're wrong and those who apply "MMO" to non-massive games are wrong.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • kenpokillerkenpokiller Member UncommonPosts: 321

    You must be an excellent out-of-the-box thinker.

     

     

    Sway all day, butterfly flaps all the way!

  • AsariashaAsariasha Member UncommonPosts: 239
    Originally posted by ikcin

    Please forget everything you think you know about MMOs. Let look at the games from different perspective.


    First RPGs are highly addictive. They even do not need to give a positive experience to the players, but of course that helps. The addiction comes from the virtual reality. Players have a whole new world to discover. Of course in a singleplayer game that is not a big problem, because it has end – the end of the story. But in MMORPGs, there is no end, so players can lose their time theoretically forever.


    Why I make this point? It is because everything started with virtual realities. Back in the good all times, that was the main goal of every MMORPG – to create a virtual reality. That was business of course, but the core was exploration and invention of new worlds.


    But there was a problem. Players competed with each other in new virtual worlds and those with a lot of free time usually won. The addicted nolifers who played 24/7, they outperformed everybody else.


    And then the WoW came. What made WoW so popular? Previous games on Blizzard and the broken world. The game reduced significantly the competition and forced the cooperation among the players. Even on PvP servers, the PvP was placed in instanced battle grounds. In fact WoW was a step back from the concept of the virtual reality.


    But still nolifers had a great advantage. So Blizzard created the daily grind, a significant reward for the players who spend a limited time every day in the game. The games after WoW made more steps in that direction. They reduced even more the competition, and the PvP, made the gameplay even easier, broke the worlds even more. The very good example for this is GW2. There are 3 de facto unrelated games covered with common label.


    So to reduce the influence of the nolifers and to earn money the gaming companies left the concept of virtual reality and started to create games for the daily grind with very limited competition. But grind is not entertaining except if you are addicted. Just engaging the player in repetitive tasks cannot be funny in any terms. What make games funny? It is the story, the challenge, the virtual world, the competition and the cooperation. Most of the players like to compete so they left the MMORPGS. That is how the rise of the Mobas started. Now most of the 800 millions of MMO players worldwide play Mobas and RTS games, but not MMORPGs.


    The MMORPGs now are usually easy, casual, solo oriented games with very limited competition, forced cooperation, and gameplay without any consequences. Every single player RPG is better.


    There is another reason for fading of MMORPGs. They are trying to be solo friendly because of the cash shops, which exist in F2P, B2P, P2W, P2P no matter what games. All have cash shops. So the developers are removing the consequences.

    Because the player cannot save to play safe and sound, the developer makes the game themepark. What is the difference among themepark and sandbox? No, it is not the vertical or horizontal progression. The difference is the consequences. If you die and drop your gear, if you cut a tree and it stays cut, if you kill a boss in competition with other players, if you build something that can be destroyed from the others, all that is sandbox. If there is no consequences, that is themepark.


    But instead to beat WoW, as a result from all that changes the modern MMOPRGs are losing money and players. They are easier modes of solo RPGs, with very limited MMO. And none of these games could fulfill the expectations for financial results and player base.


    The developers create games for larger possible audience. Games where things like aesthetic and landmark are absolutely nerfed. But when you put a robot vs knight on the arena every immersion dies quickly. Games are based on the illusion. But sunglasses combined with heavy armor, breaks it. The game becomes parody of itself.


    Now MMORPS are games in which even the weakest solo players, the total noobs, can be successful. Games made for losers, but without winners, where the main goal are solo achievements and better gear.


    How MMORPGs can be fixed? The answer is easy. Instead of removing the competition, developers shall remove the grind. Imagine a game where you compete with the other players, not only in fight, but in trade, crafting, in everything. Game where is no solo achievements and daily grind. Game where mobs are challenging and players can lose gear in every dead, and where every action has consequences. Game where are no factions, but with FFA PvP, FFA competitive trade - so no auction house, and competitive PvE. Game that is unfriendly to nolifers. Player can easily grind 24/7. But if he shall deal with strong mobs and other players, and he can lose his gear, he cannot play effectively more than 3-4 hours per day.


    Now there is some experimental sandbox MMORPGs, on the market flooded with themepark games, but they are very outdated. For example Wurm or the Gloria Victis project. Those have good MMO rule sets, but outdated UI, AI, graphics and engines.


    So imagine the MMO variant of The Witcher 3. There is a very big empty market niche for such a game right now.

     

    Thanks for sharing your opinion.

     

    I find it quite difficult to understand what you exactly want. You talk about The Witcher 3 converted to a MMO would be a great game and ask for the removal of the mechanic "grind".

     

    What I find difficult to understand is that the mechanic "grind" has a dissentive meaning for different types of players. Also, The Witcher 3 in it's core is a Theme Park with limited content. In addition, some players already stated that some of The Witcher 3's content feels like a grind. Actually the whole content that asks you to follow a map marker can rise the feeling of having to grind through the game.

     

    Tha classic MMO branched (evolved) into different types of games. Today you have got Sandbox MMOs like EVE Online, Theme Park MMOs like ESO or Battleground MMOs like League of Legends. They all have in common that several thousands of players MAY play together or against each other, while in some cases the maximum number of player per match or level is limited.

     

    So, the actual question should be, if there is some game out there that fits your expectations and likings. It seems you are a Sandbox type of player. So, I suggest a game that currently is in Alpha:

     

    Kingdom Come Deliverance: https://www.kingdomcomerpg.com/

     

    Best

    Asariasha

     

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    uh? How can definition is wrong.

    If that color is called yellow by some, and blue by other .. most you can say is that they don't agree on the definition.

    If all the yellow items are called blue .. everyone will still be communicating fine.

    In fact, in Chinese, the yellow color is called a different label ... i don't see a problem. It is only about if people agree.

    Don't tell me you think the chinese use the wrong label on color. 

    The word is defined.  You're objectively wrong if your use of a word doesn't match the agreed-upon definition.

    Someone calling the shirt yellow is wrong if the shirt is blue, because the definition is established.

    The chinese word for blue is the chinese word for blue.  It's a different language.  If you used the chinese word for yellow to describe something blue, you would also be wrong.

    Logically we should want definitions to become stronger and more reliably defined over time, only changing when there's sufficient reason to.  

    When the abacus was being phased out, nobody insisted on calling slide rules "abacuses".  This is because we don't care if a word falls into misuse but we do care if two different concepts become hard to distinguish.

    The entire point of creating "MMO" as an acronym prefix in the first place was to distinguish massive multiplayer games from non-massive ones.

    So by every account of reason and logic, you're wrong and those who apply "MMO" to non-massive games are wrong.

    Very well put.

    If any logical post could end this nonsensical discussion, this is the one. However we are not dealing with anything here that remotely comes close to resembling the faintest tidbit of logic. Instead of learning some prefer to simply flap their lips while plugging their ears. This is certainly one of those cases.

    "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

  • KaledrenKaledren Member UncommonPosts: 312
    Jesus...some of you spew nonsense to get your own point heard. You are not forceded to do anything in any MMORPG unless you allow it to do so.I was able to solo a good portion of my time in EQ1, when I wished to do so. I didn't HAVE to join 40 man groups to do boss raids. And when I wanted to do them, I usually went with smaller, more skilled players I hung with on an almost daily basis.

    The only thing forcing you to do anything is you.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Cecropia

    If any logical post could end this nonsensical discussion, this is the one. However we are not dealing with anything here that remotely comes close to resembling the faintest tidbit of logic. Instead of learning some prefer to simply flap their lips while plugging their ears. This is certainly one of those cases.

    no .. we are dealing with facts here .. and no one seems to be able to accept the fact that ... world of tank ... a clearly "non-massively" game .. is called a MMO here, on many MMO sites, many reviewers, and industry research companies like superdata.

    So clearly the word massively is not relevant to the label anymore ..... and why you can debate to your face blue that WoT is not a MMO, do you think they care? Do you think gamers reading these places, aside from a few, cares?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Kaledren
    Jesus...some of you spew nonsense to get your own point heard. You are not forceded to do anything in any MMORPG unless you allow it to do so.I was able to solo a good portion of my time in EQ1, when I wished to do so. I didn't HAVE to join 40 man groups to do boss raids. And when I wanted to do them, I usually went with smaller, more skilled players I hung with on an almost daily basis.

    The only thing forcing you to do anything is you.

     

    True ... you can always stop playing EQ1 too (like I did).

    The correct statement is not as much "forced grouping" ... but "no fun slow soloing" ... so people chose to either group (while not as much fun to them as solo and advance at the same rate), or quit the game.

    So it is not surprising that when there are "fun soloing" games ... people jump ship.

     

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    no .. we are dealing with facts here .. and no one seems to be able to accept the fact that ... world of tank ... a clearly "non-massively" game .. is called a MMO here, on many MMO sites, many reviewers, and industry research companies like superdata.

    So clearly the word massively is not relevant to the label anymore ..... and why you can debate to your face blue that WoT is not a MMO, do you think they care? Do you think gamers reading these places, aside from a few, cares?

    Some people believe the world is flat.  It's a fact that they believe that, but what they believe is not a fact.  They are wrong.

    Some people believe non-massive games are MMOs.  It's a fact that they believe that, but what they believe is not a fact.  They are wrong.

    So we're not "dealing with facts" in any meaningful sense.

    Would you rather discuss an obviously incorrect use of the word and struggle to maintain your nonexistent footing in a discussion about words' meanings, or would you rather brainstorm new ideas for games, or debate the value of use-based progression vs. level-based progression, or discuss your favorite game, or...?  Basically it's unclear why you'd take up such a doomed, obviously false position when you could spend your time discussing interesting things instead.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    no .. we are dealing with facts here .. and no one seems to be able to accept the fact that ... world of tank ... a clearly "non-massively" game .. is called a MMO here, on many MMO sites, many reviewers, and industry research companies like superdata.

    So clearly the word massively is not relevant to the label anymore ..... and why you can debate to your face blue that WoT is not a MMO, do you think they care? Do you think gamers reading these places, aside from a few, cares?

    Some people believe the world is flat.  It's a fact that they believe that, but what they believe is not a fact.  They are wrong.

    Some people believe non-massive games are MMOs.  It's a fact that they believe that, but what they believe is not a fact.  They are wrong.

    So we're not "dealing with facts" in any meaningful sense.

    Would you rather discuss an obviously incorrect use of the word and struggle to maintain your nonexistent footing in a discussion about words' meanings, or would you rather brainstorm new ideas for games, or debate the value of use-based progression vs. level-based progression, or discuss your favorite game, or...?  Basically it's unclear why you'd take up such a doomed, obviously false position when you could spend your time discussing interesting things instead.

    For whatever reason that is how he likes to spend a nice chunk of his free time. It's pure fun and joy for him. Different folks different strokes, I suppose.

    "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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Cecropia
     

    For whatever reason that is how he likes to spend a nice chunk of his free time. It's pure fun and joy for him. Different folks different strokes, I suppose.

    Because it is fun to see how people are denying how the world views MMOs.

    It is actually very funny to see that they keep saying WoT is not a MMO ... but there is nothing they can do to change websites and reviewers' mind.

     

  • CecropiaCecropia Member RarePosts: 3,972
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cecropia
     

    For whatever reason that is how he likes to spend a nice chunk of his free time. It's pure fun and joy for him. Different folks different strokes, I suppose.

    Because it is fun to see how people are denying how the world views MMOs.

    It is actually very funny to see that they keep saying WoT is not a MMO ... but there is nothing they can do to change websites and reviewers' mind.

    I honestly do not care in any way shape or form much like how I don't give a rats ass that Subaru markets the BRZ as a sports car. I don't lose sleep over misleading marketing that is intended to increase sales. I understood the concept before my age reached double digits

    "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

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,771
    Originally posted by Cecropia
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Cecropia
     

    For whatever reason that is how he likes to spend a nice chunk of his free time. It's pure fun and joy for him. Different folks different strokes, I suppose.

    Because it is fun to see how people are denying how the world views MMOs.

    It is actually very funny to see that they keep saying WoT is not a MMO ... but there is nothing they can do to change websites and reviewers' mind.

    I honestly do not care in any way shape or form much like how I don't give a rats ass that Subaru markets the BRZ as a sports car. I don't lose sleep over misleading marketing that is intended to increase sales. I understood the concept before my age reached double digits

    Really ... you seems to have post a lot very much want to force everyone to use the literal interpretation of MMOs. If you don't give a rats ass ... why post so much? May be just accept it and move on is a better strategy.

    It is not like whether MMOs is massive ... matters much. It is just a classification. The games in question will be the same and if a game is fun ... does it matter if it is classified as a MMO or not?

     

Sign In or Register to comment.