Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.
Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care.
But your logic fails.
You see, nobody tries to label their game as a "text adventure" when it isn't. Because you're right, nobody cares about text adventures. Infact if a game labeled itself as a text adventure I would be less likely to purchase it.
If nobody cares about the title MMO, then why falsify claims of being one? There is no point, unless that title still carries some weight that at least some people care about.
And the people who care about that title, are the type who care whether or not it's used properly.
If nobody cares about MMOs anymore, then drop the title and let the genre die as it should if there is no longer a market for it. There is no point in claiming to be something that "nobody cares about." Especially when you're not.
One of the many reasons I rarely play MMO's anymore.
Do you play other kinds of game now or have you stopped gaming altogether?
Yes, mostly RPG's. Skyrim, Mass Effect, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. Gaming helps me unwind. I've found that most MMO's just pile the stress on. And you can believe I've had a hell of alot of stress in the last few years (job loss that hurt like hell, losing the ability to have children because all the parts have been cut out due to severe medical issues, and just yesterday having all my teeth pulled for dentures. Bad few years. Just bad). The only MMO I play anymore really is EQ2 and that's mostly the housing part.
I play RPG's to get away from it all. To become someone else for a while. But MMO's... they held so much promise and they've become a formulaic joke.
i think alot of game suxxors nowadays. it happens. there are a jillion out there, i'd move on and not waste time on the crap ones honestly. keep an eye out for camelot unchained, it won't have that stuff you posted about, dont worry.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.
Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care.
Do you not think that this is an opportunity though?
If you look at the actual MMOs that are on the market right now (meaning, those that allow 500+ players within the same virtual world), how many of them actually have features that utilise the power of massively-multiplayer?
Most are now solo orientated and are played in a solo manner. Group sizes are shrinking and the amount of group content is minimal. Classes are designed to be independent. Crafting has taken a back seat and is mostly pointless. Social features have been removed. Open world pvp is becoming rarer. Even the game engines used by most can't support large numbers of players. In short, the themepark approach to MMO design has resulted in the genre moving away from being massively-multiplayer.
Yet, the sandbox approach, which does utilise the power of massively-multiplayer, has never had the investment required to produce AAA games that are accessible to the masses. Since the release of WoW, no big developer has even attempted to make a good sandbox, let alone a AAA one. All we get is low quality sandboxes built around hardcore features that scare off most people.
I truly believe that if a big developer invested in a AAA sandbox title that really focused on being massively multiplayer, they would have a big hit on their hands. Not only would it appeal to people who are already fans of actual MMOs, but I believe it would attract a lot of new players to the genre once they see what it is actually capable of. It would be a risk as there is nothing comparable on the market right now, but if they chose a big IP to work with (for example, making GTA an MMO) then they would at least have a large fanbase to help them with initial sales.
Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care.
Do you not think that this is an opportunity though?
What i think is irrelevant (and for the record "no"). But look at what devs are thinking? Blizz hit it big with hearthstone & overwatch. Why confine themselves to MMOs when there are many other online game types?
Why build online, persistent, worlds when a lobby and fun MP gameplay (or solo gameplay) will suffice?
Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius? I'm trying to keep up.
well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.
But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius? I'm trying to keep up.
well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.
But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
Not so sure it does; as of this posting, you hold the last reply on three different threads on the recent activity box, all giving this same spiel.
This second paragraph is unimaginative trolling. Maybe I should play an MMO? I do play MMOs, multiple MMOs actually. Not sure what that has to do with your little crusade here.
Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius? I'm trying to keep up.
well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.
But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
It doesn't pale in comparison. Nari is the the most active participant in language debate. He constantly brings it up regardless of whether the topic is about it it or not.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO.
The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
You miss mentioning the site itself.
Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here.
The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
You miss mentioning the site itself.
Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here.
No it doesn't. Which is why if you were to go ask "What games do you consider to be MMOs" all around the gaming communities everywhere League of Legends and Hearthstone would be names you hardly ever hear.
It's why when you put "Define MMO" into Google your top results are things like this:
A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).
Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. I'd say support is lower on this site than other places, both because this site is intentionally getting it wrong in order to stay more relevant and because people love to argue ridiculous points that don't even get argued over other places here.
You are right that the vast majority of people don't put much thought into the definition of what MMO is. They just know what is an MMO and what isn't. They accept that games like EVE, WoW, and Runescape are, and they do not accept that games like League of Legends, Hearthstone, and ARK are.
The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
You miss mentioning the site itself.
Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here.
No it doesn't. Which is why if you were to go ask "What games do you consider to be MMOs" all around the gaming communities everywhere League of Legends and Hearthstone would be names you hardly ever hear.
It's why when you put "Define MMO" into Google your top results are things like this:
A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).
Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. I'd say support is lower on this site than other places, both because this site is intentionally getting it wrong in order to stay more relevant and because people love to argue ridiculous points that don't even get argued over other places here.
You are right that the vast majority of people don't put much thought into the definition of what MMO is. They just know what is an MMO and what isn't. They accept that games like EVE, WoW, and Runescape are, and they do not accept that games like League of Legends, Hearthstone, and ARK are.
That's a debate for a whole other thread. People often argue semantics on this topic specifically, but it really doesn't make sense to do so. Early MMOs didn't have thousands of players, or multiple hundreds either. Lobby games quite often can house hundreds of players in a chat or instance of some type but won't allow that many in a given instance outside of hubs.
Basically every part of the word MMO can be subjective. There is no single definition or threshold of what is needed to hit "MMO" status.
4) now let's go to metacritics' world of tank page .. and guess that the reviews are saying? And i quote: "Unique and confident in its place in the free-to-play world, this team-based MMO is a surefire winner, balancing fun with depth and detail with action." "This is by far the best free to play MMO out there at the moment. " "Whatever the case, this is one of the finest free-to-play MMOs to date." "World of Tanks is a fun, unique, free to play MMO that contains a huge number of different, real-life, models. "
There are literally thousands upon thousands of examples like this. But i suppose you can keep sticking your head in the sand.
Annnnnnnd ... the wheels on the Bus go Round and Round
Of course.
The only thing this place is good at .. is flogging the dead horse.
The funny thing is that after the broadening of MMOs in the last few years, it becomes so easy to find examples of how people don't care about the definition of MMO, and use the label as they see fit.
And it is fun to have the MMO-police staring at facts trying to come up with spin. I bet Eldurian will now say "massively overpowered" does not matter, and reviewers do not matter. He he he he he he!!!
Annnnnnnd ... the wheels on the Bus go Round and Round
Of course.
The only thing this place is good at .. is flogging the dead horse.
The funny thing is that after the broadening of MMOs in the last few years, it becomes so easy to find examples of how people don't care about the definition of MMO, and use the label as they see fit.
And it is fun to have the MMO-police staring at facts trying to come up with spin. I bet Eldurian will now say "massively overpowered" does not matter, and reviewers do not matter. He he he he he he!!!
Annnnnnnd ... the wheels on the Bus go Round and Round
Of course.
The only thing this place is good at .. is flogging the dead horse.
The funny thing is that after the broadening of MMOs in the last few years, it becomes so easy to find examples of how people don't care about the definition of MMO, and use the label as they see fit.
And it is fun to have the MMO-police staring at facts trying to come up with spin. I bet Eldurian will now say "massively overpowered" does not matter, and reviewers do not matter. He he he he he he!!!
Thanks for bumping what i said. I guess you agree with it.
Comments
You see, nobody tries to label their game as a "text adventure" when it isn't. Because you're right, nobody cares about text adventures. Infact if a game labeled itself as a text adventure I would be less likely to purchase it.
If nobody cares about the title MMO, then why falsify claims of being one? There is no point, unless that title still carries some weight that at least some people care about.
And the people who care about that title, are the type who care whether or not it's used properly.
If nobody cares about MMOs anymore, then drop the title and let the genre die as it should if there is no longer a market for it. There is no point in claiming to be something that "nobody cares about." Especially when you're not.
I play RPG's to get away from it all. To become someone else for a while. But MMO's... they held so much promise and they've become a formulaic joke.
If you look at the actual MMOs that are on the market right now (meaning, those that allow 500+ players within the same virtual world), how many of them actually have features that utilise the power of massively-multiplayer?
Most are now solo orientated and are played in a solo manner. Group sizes are shrinking and the amount of group content is minimal. Classes are designed to be independent. Crafting has taken a back seat and is mostly pointless. Social features have been removed. Open world pvp is becoming rarer. Even the game engines used by most can't support large numbers of players. In short, the themepark approach to MMO design has resulted in the genre moving away from being massively-multiplayer.
Yet, the sandbox approach, which does utilise the power of massively-multiplayer, has never had the investment required to produce AAA games that are accessible to the masses. Since the release of WoW, no big developer has even attempted to make a good sandbox, let alone a AAA one. All we get is low quality sandboxes built around hardcore features that scare off most people.
I truly believe that if a big developer invested in a AAA sandbox title that really focused on being massively multiplayer, they would have a big hit on their hands. Not only would it appeal to people who are already fans of actual MMOs, but I believe it would attract a lot of new players to the genre once they see what it is actually capable of. It would be a risk as there is nothing comparable on the market right now, but if they chose a big IP to work with (for example, making GTA an MMO) then they would at least have a large fanbase to help them with initial sales.
Why build online, persistent, worlds when a lobby and fun MP gameplay (or solo gameplay) will suffice?
well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.
But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
This second paragraph is unimaginative trolling. Maybe I should play an MMO? I do play MMOs, multiple MMOs actually. Not sure what that has to do with your little crusade here.
Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here.
It's why when you put "Define MMO" into Google your top results are things like this:
Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. I'd say support is lower on this site than other places, both because this site is intentionally getting it wrong in order to stay more relevant and because people love to argue ridiculous points that don't even get argued over other places here.
You are right that the vast majority of people don't put much thought into the definition of what MMO is. They just know what is an MMO and what isn't. They accept that games like EVE, WoW, and Runescape are, and they do not accept that games like League of Legends, Hearthstone, and ARK are.
Basically every part of the word MMO can be subjective. There is no single definition or threshold of what is needed to hit "MMO" status.
Let's see (after 5 min search):
1) This best MMO list: http://www.gamesradar.com/best-mmorpg/
#21 is star conflict where you only fight in instances, and there is not even a 3D lobby.
2) In this thread asking for best MMO: https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/5yz9v6/best_mmos_to_play_in_2017/
Warframe and Path of Exile are part of the responses.
3) Even massively overpowered: http://massivelyop.com/tag/world-of-tanks/
classifies world of tanks as a "historical mmofps sim".
4) now let's go to metacritics' world of tank page .. and guess that the reviews are saying? And i quote:"Unique and confident in its place in the free-to-play world, this team-based MMO is a surefire winner, balancing fun with depth and detail with action."
"This is by far the best free to play MMO out there at the moment. "
"Whatever the case, this is one of the finest free-to-play MMOs to date."
"World of Tanks is a fun, unique, free to play MMO that contains a huge number of different, real-life, models. "
There are literally thousands upon thousands of examples like this. But i suppose you can keep sticking your head in the sand.
The only thing this place is good at .. is flogging the dead horse.
The funny thing is that after the broadening of MMOs in the last few years, it becomes so easy to find examples of how people don't care about the definition of MMO, and use the label as they see fit.
And it is fun to have the MMO-police staring at facts trying to come up with spin. I bet Eldurian will now say "massively overpowered" does not matter, and reviewers do not matter. He he he he he he!!!