At the risk of starting a needless fight, because, you know, us third person folks are the devil, and first person is so emersive that I should just use it even though it makes me sick. I will ask this question anyways in hopes that someone can simply answer it without needing to start an all out war over view perspective.
Is Destiny 2 going to have third person view? (I dont know anything about Destiny 1 or if it does or not, since I only play on PC)
Thanks in advance
I'll be honest. I hated the first Destiny. Sure, it had well-polished gameplay, but the story was pathetically threadbare, most of the lore was locked behind the equivalent of an online appendix, and content was far too lacking.
However, if Destiny 2 comes out and fixes the main issues I had with the game (the lack of story, lack of matchmaking for the real content of the game, poor chat and grouping support, and over-priced business model that effectively required both frequent expansions and a PS+ account to play), I would give it a chance.
Fortunately, I think that being on PC will guarantee that, at a minimum, at least a couple of those issues will be fixed. PC players will not settle for lacking chat and group support features and a PS+ subscription can't be forced upon the PC crowd. Furthermore, on PC, Destiny has to compete with real MMOs, rather than the sparse competition on consoles.
How is it not an MMO. Massive Multiplayer peope playing an Online Role Playing Game. I'm for one glad that World of Warcraft has finally been decliared a winner and after 10 years of trinklings of innovation in MMOs (with everyone chasing the World of warcraft money unicorn) , designers can get back to inovating MMOs. I was hoping that the guild wars 1 type of mmo made a comeback.
People talking about what isn't an mmo should look at how early mmos.
You logged in to a "lobby" screen from which you selected your server. This enabled you to join maybe 1.500 people. Except these were usually split between realms, factions whatever. And they were also in different zones that you entered via an instance - sorry loading screen.
In early mmos you were doing well if you were one of at most a few hundred.
So something that runs on a megaserver (instead of a server selection screen) that uses phases (instead of zone instances) .....
Doesn't matter you say its all about the persistent world. Not so. Very few mmos have a "persistent world". What they have are "persistent characters". Log off and when you log on the world will be "exactly" the same from your perspective. The world itself stops whilst you are logged off. Just like Destiny.
In a truly persistent world things carry on, 24/7. There are games out there which just keep going; PotBS, Stronghold Kingdoms and many more. The world carries on without you.
@SBFord I actually did and he said it was an mmo so what exactly are you talking about? I'm not insulting anything, I'm stating the fact that it is not an mmo which the creators of the game have even said.
Actually, just because the developer is saying it isn't doesn't mean it isn't. Ubisoft promoted The Division as an MMO for quite a while before they seem to have backed off from that stance. Fact is it's not a flattering term.
Try to explain to someone how MMOs aren't a grind and try to keep a straight face. Shoot, try working WoW into a gaming conversation and see how people look at you. The stigma was worse a decade ago, but it still lingers today.
Just because I tell you that a dog isn't a dog, it's a cat, doesn't magically make it a cat. Destiny had, effectively, all the components that you would expect from an MMO, minus the massive scale, possibly, and the social tools. DESPITE not having social tools, which you might think would gimp an MMO, there ended up being community tools like DestinyLFG which popped up and STILL get thousands of LFG requests on an hourly basis 2 years after the initial release.
Agree.
If they call it something they are trying to promote it and attract a market segment. If they don't they are avoiding a stigma and / or a label that creates expectations.
Imagine if BMW offered a "S1500 RR sports car" for pre-order. When it came with 2 wheels BMW would probably be accused of deception (since it would be a motorbike).
As @CrazKanuk says just because a developer says - or doesn't say - doesn't make it so. And we know there is no nailed down, universally accepted definition of "mmo". And certainly not a definition that has remained static as a result of technological changes. Games are what they are - good or bad - and we attach imperfect labels to them.
An MMO is literally a massive multiplayer online game. That's the only criteria you need to meet the genre...so why exactly is this being contested?? Is this more marxist liberal english re-defining nonsense??
Destiny is not an MMO for the simple fact that it doesn't feel like an MMO... All those other players in the shared hubs, and yet there is no way to interact with them; they may as well be bots. In terms of multiplayer, the only thing that makes it a step up from Quake is auto matching, and that is (or was) only implemented for the easy activities that didn't actually require multiple players; and if you regularly play with friends then it is functionally no different to any other co-op multiplayer game. Oh, and there is certainly nothing massive about it (Battlefield has more players interacting than Destiny does, so is that an MMO now too? Or does its lack of hub-world exclude it?), so yeah, Shared World Shooter is a far better descriptor than ‘MMO’.
As for being good for the genre, I still have my doubts it will be much good in and of itself, but putting that aside, the #1 reason all the WoW clones saw so little success is that they failed to realise what made WoW so good, and I highly doubt a bunch of Destiny clones will do any better. Of course I hope I'm wrong, and Destiny 2 does finally live up to the epic promise that was the idea behind Destiny, but this level of hype when we have little more than a trailer is insane.
If Destiny 2 tries to be more MMO than Destiny 1 then they better have a persistent world like Firefall and Defiance. Otherwise it's just another online only shooter to throw on the pile.
I think it will because one dev said the first was initially meant to have bigger open worlds in each planet.
You all missed the point. Whether it's an MMO or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it will inevitably bring more development into persistent online worlds (MMO). But keep arguing over the meaning of the acronym. We haven't done that enough these last 15 years.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
You all missed the point. Whether it's an MMO or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it will inevitably bring more development into persistent online worlds (MMO). But keep arguing over the meaning of the acronym. We haven't done that enough these last 15 years.
God willing , we will all be arguing about it 15 years from now also
You all missed the point. Whether it's an MMO or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it will inevitably bring more development into persistent online worlds (MMO). But keep arguing over the meaning of the acronym. We haven't done that enough these last 15 years.
I dont think that people dont realize that just because some mmo/rpgs have opens worlds, doesn't mean they aren't the same as a hub based game. FFXIV and not long ago with WoW, both acting the same way since you'd been spending 90% of the time in one spot waiting for instanced content.
Instead of arguing over what is or isn't an MMORPG, we should be banding together about how sick we are of shitty games.
We leap from release to release, each new game the savior. But 9/10 are utter rubbish. As a fandom, we deserve better.
So again, it doesn't matter what requirements we individually hold for a game to be an MMO. What matters is that they stop being trash.
Not everyone agrees that the first Destiny was a good game to begin with. I personally don't care if it's an MMO, or not. I have interest in multi-player games as a whole overall. With that said, the first game left a bad enough impression that I'm approaching this sequel with great caution.
Yes, the original Destiny has a huge following regardless of how I feel about it, but an under performing sequel could do more harm than good in the long haul. What if Bungie burns a lot of their fans of the first game? Your argument on the good for the future of large scale multi-player video games (which is exactly what you're referring to) becomes moot.
Instead of constantly writing hype train, fanboy articles/reviews, you and your publication should take a more neutral and critical stance for the good of the genre. Assisting the sale of false promises, even if not intended, does way more harm to the industry as a whole.
I'm not accusing you or your publication of intentional "sell out" status, because I generally don't believe publishers buy out the media like so many on these forums seem to believe. Why buy something which is given out for free? If you catch my drift....
Destiny is not an MMO for the simple fact that it doesn't feel like an MMO... All those other players in the shared hubs, and yet there is no way to interact with them; <snip>
So just like all the other WoW players on servers you cannot interact with - and the only thing making WoW an mmo is the LFG tool?
The Mundanely Evil Wizard's gem of immortality was destroyed and shattered into shards; a copy of the world stored in each shard. Some day, it was said, the shards would be reunited. Now, thanks to the power of the megaserver that time has come.
Destiny 2 may be a good game, or not. It may be highly successful, or not. It may give hours of pleasure and fun to millions of people, or not. It may have a major influence on the design of games for years to come, or not.
But it will not be good for the MMORPG genre, because it is not part of that genre. It may be bad for the genre, in that it lures players and cash elsewhere but not good.
Destiny is not an MMO for the simple fact that it doesn't feel like an MMO... All those other players in the shared hubs, and yet there is no way to interact with them; <snip>
So just like all the other WoW players on servers you cannot interact with - and the only thing making WoW an mmo is the LFG tool?
Houston we have .... !
??? except in WoW you can type /w [playername] and actually talk to anyone on the same server... hell, even /say Hello! works for anyone around you... in Destiny you can't even do that much; all those other players around you, and it wouldn't matter if it was 10 or 10000, they are effecitively little more than moving wallpaper.
And why does this matter? Because the main thing that seperates an MMO (i.e. 'Massively' multiplayer) game from other multiplayer games (such as Battlefield or Quake) is the ability for large groups of players to communicate and interact in a dynamic manner. Destiny totally lacks this.
PS. Just because all people do in WoW is sit in one spot and do LFG runs doesn't mean that they can't go out into the world and interact with others (that's just the poor design of WoW)... and if WoW got ride of all it's chat channels and relied on third party services to create pre-made groups I wouldn't call it an MMO either.
Instead of arguing over what is or isn't an MMORPG, we should be banding together about how sick we are of shitty games.
We leap from release to release, each new game the savior. But 9/10 are utter rubbish. As a fandom, we deserve better.
So again, it doesn't matter what requirements we individually hold for a game to be an MMO. What matters is that they stop being trash.
Destiny was hyped to be huge before release but instead it was another game that cobbled together elements of MMO's and while the hype made it gather huge sales the game at release was fairly mediocre.
As an MMO it was really lacking, another game world with little to no player interaction.The multiplayer had 3-player dungeons and 6-player raids which means a lot smaller compared to older mmorpg. The roles were also limited.
I find it interesting how you managed to talk about how we make each new game the savior in your own article where you pretty much make destiny 2 the savior of the MMO genre based on no information on the game beyond it being released on PC.
We already had an MMO'ish shooter releasing on PC in the division. While it had good initial sales and decent reviews people abandoned it within a few months. I don't see how destiny 2 is going to be any different.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
I'm happy that Destiny 2 is coming to the PC, that is definitely a good move for gamers in general. The first game was popular, despite being extremely repetitive, so opening up the sequel to a larger audience is great.
However, I doubt it will be an MMO.
It's all down to the definition of "massively multiplayer online". For me, I use simple English comprehension. Take a standard multiplayer online game. What is the largest average number of people? 128. There are loads of online shooters that allow 64v64 games to take place.
So, pick a number that is massively bigger than 128 (I choose 500 as my minimum, but massively is subjective)
Any game that allows massively more than 128 people to interact with one another, in the game world, at the same time, is an MMO. UO, AC, WoW, DAoC, LotRO, RIFT, Aion, WAR etc, all managed to make that happen and thus are MMOs. Destiny, The Division, GW etc do not, hence they are not MMOs. If you do start calling them MMOs, then you also need to start calling Quake, Unreal Tournament, COD and Battlefield games all MMOs too, which they clearly aren't.
Destiny 2, we'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it'll be an MMO.
I know people don't like to argue about labels but I personally find them very important. I love MMOs for the MMO part. It is the one unique selling point of the genre - the ability to play in the same world at the same time as 1000s of other people. I love seeing other people running around the map. I love grouping up with them to take on content. I particularly love large scale pvp with 100s on each side, all fighting over different points on the same map.
If you start mis-labeling products, firstly it's against the law (false advertising), but secondly you reduce the integrity of the genre. As the scope of what MMO means widens, so the term loses meaning and becomes useless. The genre then either has to create a new label for itself so it can retain it's identity, or else get consumed by other genres. If that happens, then fans from the other genres start placing demands for features on MMOs and at that point, the genre is dead.
Comments
Is Destiny 2 going to have third person view? (I dont know anything about Destiny 1 or if it does or not, since I only play on PC) Thanks in advance
www.90and9.net
www.prophecymma.com
However, if Destiny 2 comes out and fixes the main issues I had with the game (the lack of story, lack of matchmaking for the real content of the game, poor chat and grouping support, and over-priced business model that effectively required both frequent expansions and a PS+ account to play), I would give it a chance.
Fortunately, I think that being on PC will guarantee that, at a minimum, at least a couple of those issues will be fixed. PC players will not settle for lacking chat and group support features and a PS+ subscription can't be forced upon the PC crowd. Furthermore, on PC, Destiny has to compete with real MMOs, rather than the sparse competition on consoles.
You logged in to a "lobby" screen from which you selected your server. This enabled you to join maybe 1.500 people. Except these were usually split between realms, factions whatever. And they were also in different zones that you entered via an instance - sorry loading screen.
In early mmos you were doing well if you were one of at most a few hundred.
So something that runs on a megaserver (instead of a server selection screen) that uses phases (instead of zone instances) .....
Doesn't matter you say its all about the persistent world. Not so. Very few mmos have a "persistent world". What they have are "persistent characters". Log off and when you log on the world will be "exactly" the same from your perspective. The world itself stops whilst you are logged off. Just like Destiny.
In a truly persistent world things carry on, 24/7. There are games out there which just keep going; PotBS, Stronghold Kingdoms and many more. The world carries on without you.
If they call it something they are trying to promote it and attract a market segment. If they don't they are avoiding a stigma and / or a label that creates expectations.
Imagine if BMW offered a "S1500 RR sports car" for pre-order. When it came with 2 wheels BMW would probably be accused of deception (since it would be a motorbike).
As @CrazKanuk says just because a developer says - or doesn't say - doesn't make it so. And we know there is no nailed down, universally accepted definition of "mmo". And certainly not a definition that has remained static as a result of technological changes. Games are what they are - good or bad - and we attach imperfect labels to them.
Well.. I guess you "TOLD" "US"....
As for being good for the genre, I still have my doubts it will be much good in and of itself, but putting that aside, the #1 reason all the WoW clones saw so little success is that they failed to realise what made WoW so good, and I highly doubt a bunch of Destiny clones will do any better. Of course I hope I'm wrong, and Destiny 2 does finally live up to the epic promise that was the idea behind Destiny, but this level of hype when we have little more than a trailer is insane.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
We leap from release to release, each new game the savior. But 9/10 are utter rubbish. As a fandom, we deserve better.
So again, it doesn't matter what requirements we individually hold for a game to be an MMO. What matters is that they stop being trash.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
Yes, the original Destiny has a huge following regardless of how I feel about it, but an under performing sequel could do more harm than good in the long haul. What if Bungie burns a lot of their fans of the first game? Your argument on the good for the future of large scale multi-player video games (which is exactly what you're referring to) becomes moot.
Instead of constantly writing hype train, fanboy articles/reviews, you and your publication should take a more neutral and critical stance for the good of the genre. Assisting the sale of false promises, even if not intended, does way more harm to the industry as a whole.
I'm not accusing you or your publication of intentional "sell out" status, because I generally don't believe publishers buy out the media like so many on these forums seem to believe. Why buy something which is given out for free? If you catch my drift....
Houston we have .... !
It may be highly successful, or not.
It may give hours of pleasure and fun to millions of people, or not.
It may have a major influence on the design of games for years to come, or not.
But it will not be good for the MMORPG genre, because it is not part of that genre. It may be bad for the genre, in that it lures players and cash elsewhere but not good.
And why does this matter? Because the main thing that seperates an MMO (i.e. 'Massively' multiplayer) game from other multiplayer games (such as Battlefield or Quake) is the ability for large groups of players to communicate and interact in a dynamic manner. Destiny totally lacks this.
PS. Just because all people do in WoW is sit in one spot and do LFG runs doesn't mean that they can't go out into the world and interact with others (that's just the poor design of WoW)... and if WoW got ride of all it's chat channels and relied on third party services to create pre-made groups I wouldn't call it an MMO either.
As an MMO it was really lacking, another game world with little to no player interaction.The multiplayer had 3-player dungeons and 6-player raids which means a lot smaller compared to older mmorpg. The roles were also limited.
I find it interesting how you managed to talk about how we make each new game the savior in your own article where you pretty much make destiny 2 the savior of the MMO genre based on no information on the game beyond it being released on PC.
We already had an MMO'ish shooter releasing on PC in the division. While it had good initial sales and decent reviews people abandoned it within a few months. I don't see how destiny 2 is going to be any different.
However, I doubt it will be an MMO.
It's all down to the definition of "massively multiplayer online". For me, I use simple English comprehension. Take a standard multiplayer online game. What is the largest average number of people? 128. There are loads of online shooters that allow 64v64 games to take place.
So, pick a number that is massively bigger than 128 (I choose 500 as my minimum, but massively is subjective)
Any game that allows massively more than 128 people to interact with one another, in the game world, at the same time, is an MMO. UO, AC, WoW, DAoC, LotRO, RIFT, Aion, WAR etc, all managed to make that happen and thus are MMOs. Destiny, The Division, GW etc do not, hence they are not MMOs. If you do start calling them MMOs, then you also need to start calling Quake, Unreal Tournament, COD and Battlefield games all MMOs too, which they clearly aren't.
Destiny 2, we'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it'll be an MMO.
I know people don't like to argue about labels but I personally find them very important. I love MMOs for the MMO part. It is the one unique selling point of the genre - the ability to play in the same world at the same time as 1000s of other people. I love seeing other people running around the map. I love grouping up with them to take on content. I particularly love large scale pvp with 100s on each side, all fighting over different points on the same map.
If you start mis-labeling products, firstly it's against the law (false advertising), but secondly you reduce the integrity of the genre. As the scope of what MMO means widens, so the term loses meaning and becomes useless. The genre then either has to create a new label for itself so it can retain it's identity, or else get consumed by other genres. If that happens, then fans from the other genres start placing demands for features on MMOs and at that point, the genre is dead.