PC gamer - I bought a ps4 just to try out destiny 2. It's shallow. The game is set up for small groups and makes it decently hard to actually get them set up. In the public zones you will never see more than 9 people, and most of the time it's far less. When you join a server the game reserves slots for your whole team, even if you don't have one. So if you play solo, you'll be lucky to see more than 4 people at a public event, if you include yourself. It's a decent buy if you go in thinking it's just a single player story game. If you go looking for the division level of depth .. you'll be sorely disappointed. If I remember right, the division got knocked for being too shallow.
I played destiny 1 with my brothers only because my brothers were playing it. It was the first time we played games online together. I never actually liked the game as it was a shallow piece of crap. Especially coming from an MMO. My brothers who don't play MMO's never realized how dumb the game was.
I refuse to play destiny 2 because I know the game just sucks for me. But when I start getting days off from work, I may be able to play again with my brothers (i moved timezones so it is tough now).
We'll probably end up playing Rocket league together.
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I don't care what other people call themselves, what they do, or what they play. I know what MMORPG means to me. I get how other MMOs and multiplayer games are different. I just don't care about those semantics because they don't affect how and what I play.
People on here can call D2 and MMO all they want and it means nothing to me because why should it? On the 24th I'm going to shoot things with other people online.
If you want to trip up over someone being wrong on the internet, it's your time. It still won't get you the game you want to play. Do you want to spend your energy telling people they're labeling things wrong or do you want to spend it getting games you like to play made? Maybe you've got time and energy for both. There is Pantheon and CU coming soonish. That should be encouraging.
That's how I am. Heck, if the industry decided to call mmorpg's "Green Eggs and Ham" one day I would then say "ok, great, going to play myself some Green Eggs and Ham, yes I am!"
I wonder if you have a point there about players "not getting the game they want to play".
As if all these arguments are really a reaction from people who are not getting the games they want and insisting on very strict definitions (though in some ways I think this is a gamer thing) is their way of solidifying what an mmorpg is because by not doing that the original definition might be forgotten and no one will ever make one "like they used to" ever again.
As if by sticking to the original definition there is still a chance someone might still make one.
Im not buying that , There are plenty of real MMOs to play and would be wiling to bet that every person that voted No has an active MMO they play ... I dont know why people insist on calling something its clearly not ..
I don't care what other people call themselves, what they do, or what they play. I know what MMORPG means to me. I get how other MMOs and multiplayer games are different. I just don't care about those semantics because they don't affect how and what I play.
People on here can call D2 and MMO all they want and it means nothing to me because why should it? On the 24th I'm going to shoot things with other people online.
If you want to trip up over someone being wrong on the internet, it's your time. It still won't get you the game you want to play. Do you want to spend your energy telling people they're labeling things wrong or do you want to spend it getting games you like to play made? Maybe you've got time and energy for both. There is Pantheon and CU coming soonish. That should be encouraging.
That's how I am. Heck, if the industry decided to call mmorpg's "Green Eggs and Ham" one day I would then say "ok, great, going to play myself some Green Eggs and Ham, yes I am!"
I wonder if you have a point there about players "not getting the game they want to play".
As if all these arguments are really a reaction from people who are not getting the games they want and insisting on very strict definitions (though in some ways I think this is a gamer thing) is their way of solidifying what an mmorpg is because by not doing that the original definition might be forgotten and no one will ever make one "like they used to" ever again.
As if by sticking to the original definition there is still a chance someone might still make one.
Im not buying that , There are plenty of real MMOs to play and would be wiling to bet that every person that voted No has an active MMO they play ... I dont know why people insist on calling something its clearly not ..
Just a thought. Though there has always been the point that terms/words evolve and things that used to mean one thing eventually mean something else. In an age where information moves quickly and technology becomes obsolete "over night" I don't see why it's a surprise that some gaming nomenclature would trend toward another meaning or trend toward including something that 10 years ago would be unthinkable.
While I still think if an mmorpg as a single game world where some "ginormous" amount of people might come in contact with each other, It's not really "beyond the pale" to me to think that it could also mean "some ginormous amount of people logging in and then partying up/being matched with a small subgroup of that initial group.
And while there are plenty of "real mmo's" to play, there aren't a huge amount of them in production at the moment.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't care what other people call themselves, what they do, or what they play. I know what MMORPG means to me. I get how other MMOs and multiplayer games are different. I just don't care about those semantics because they don't affect how and what I play.
People on here can call D2 and MMO all they want and it means nothing to me because why should it? On the 24th I'm going to shoot things with other people online.
If you want to trip up over someone being wrong on the internet, it's your time. It still won't get you the game you want to play. Do you want to spend your energy telling people they're labeling things wrong or do you want to spend it getting games you like to play made? Maybe you've got time and energy for both. There is Pantheon and CU coming soonish. That should be encouraging.
That's how I am. Heck, if the industry decided to call mmorpg's "Green Eggs and Ham" one day I would then say "ok, great, going to play myself some Green Eggs and Ham, yes I am!"
I wonder if you have a point there about players "not getting the game they want to play".
As if all these arguments are really a reaction from people who are not getting the games they want and insisting on very strict definitions (though in some ways I think this is a gamer thing) is their way of solidifying what an mmorpg is because by not doing that the original definition might be forgotten and no one will ever make one "like they used to" ever again.
As if by sticking to the original definition there is still a chance someone might still make one.
Im not buying that , There are plenty of real MMOs to play and would be wiling to bet that every person that voted No has an active MMO they play ... I dont know why people insist on calling something its clearly not ..
Just a thought. Though there has always been the point that terms/words evolve and things that used to mean one thing eventually mean something else. In an age where information moves quickly and technology becomes obsolete "over night" I don't see why it's a surprise that some gaming nomenclature would trend toward another meaning or trend toward including something that 10 years ago would be unthinkable.
While I still think if an mmorpg as a single game world where some "ginormous" amount of people might come in contact with each other, It's not really "beyond the pale" to me to think that it could also mean "some ginormous amount of people logging in and then partying up/being matched with a small subgroup of that initial group.
And while there are plenty of "real mmo's" to play, there aren't a huge amount of them in production at the moment.
I dont agree , and fortunatley for the MMORPG genre, the Dev houses are moving away from convulting and bastardizing an entire genre like they did for 10 years in attempt to pull in more sales from the Xbox generation .. If you watch the trends you will notice that they are moving back to catergorizing there games properly .. They realize that by properly labeling there games it will target the proper audiences and not dissapoint others ..
They spent 10 years throwing MMO label on anything in trying to pull in sales from the MMO market..I think the move away will only help the MMO genre as it gets back to its roots ..
The Devs realize that its not such a good thing to place that label on for many reasons .. And for sales its not neccassary as has been proven by recent releases , you can expect this trend to continue ..
Im a heavy heavy investor in ATVI, FCMKF , EA .. etc.. there are many reasons they are moving away from that tag .. Its calculated and intentional
The reason most of us insist on proper usage is because the other usage both has no consistent meaning and, when taken to it's logical conclusion, renders the term meaningless. I've said many times that The Last of Us would qualify as an MMO by the "evolved" definition, yet I don't see anyone here attempting to conflate that title. Why not shooters? They have player levels, equipment and skin unlocks, the whole nine yards of what Mobas include. Yet, folks like to ignore that point because it's not as easy to explain away a complete and utter lack of clarity or consistency when your argument amounts to "it's an MMO because I got told it was an MMO!" No shit? I got told one time that snakes have legs. Erego, language has just evolved to define legs as anything that allows locomotion. Tank legs are incredibly strange looking. That reminds me, I need to put a new set of legs on the GT next spring, mine are starting to show wear around the.... Toes, I guess?
If we're going to call anything with multiplayer an MMO, there's no longer a point in using the term. Just call them all multiplayer. It has nothing to do with sour grapes regarding the genre entries (I play more single player and Mobas than I do MMOs these days), it has nothing to do (at least to me) with attempting to get a certain game made or not made. It has to do with delineating one type of experience from another, which is the entire point of genre descriptors on the first place.
If someone wishes to be willfully ignorant, have at it. But it doesn't change the fact that the term was created to delineate two different types of game experiences and continues to signal that difference.
18% of the members of this forum who bothered to vote have spoken. Obviously, that means definitions do not matter.
A better means of knowing what the majority thinks is putting up a strawpoll and posting it on a few reddits (mmorpg/pcgaming/destiny as main reddits I can think of) and also putting it on MMORPG.com (like this poll) and not sure what other gaming site since don't really use them. Whatever game forums whoever makes the strawpoll if anyone does. Also put on facebook if use that.
Then you won't get a bunch of jaded MMORPG voters praying for the glory days of the old MMORPGs to come back and all the newcomers to go away. Then you'll get a far more proper, and far more widespread results of what people think.
I'll concede if the majority vote that destiny 2 isn't an MMO, if whoever decides to make a strawpoll and posting it on various sites for a far wide range of voters. If still shows destiny 2 is not an MMO, then guess that be the majority.
Posting on one random forum doesn't show much, especially since this forum has a bunch of jaded vets who hate new MMOs.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
18% of the members of this forum who bothered to vote have spoken. Obviously, that means definitions do not matter.
A better means of knowing what the majority thinks is putting up a strawpoll and posting it on a few reddits (mmorpg/pcgaming/destiny as main reddits I can think of) and also putting it on MMORPG.com (like this poll) and not sure what other gaming site since don't really use them. Whatever game forums whoever makes the strawpoll if anyone does. Also put on facebook if use that.
Then you won't get a bunch of jaded MMORPG voters praying for the glory days of the old MMORPGs to come back and all the newcomers to go away. Then you'll get a far more proper, and far more widespread results of what people think.
I'll concede if the majority vote that destiny 2 isn't an MMO, if whoever decides to make a strawpoll and posting it on various sites for a far wide range of voters. If still shows destiny 2 is not an MMO, then guess that be the majority.
Posting on one random forum doesn't show much, especially since this forum has a bunch of jaded vets who hate new MMOs.
The real point is that "massively" actually has a meaning and there are a few people who argue even though they have no basis (trolls or stupid). It's a dumb argument because there is no real argument. It can't be an mmo because it does not include all guidelines that would make it an mmo the same way online poker games are not MMOs.
18% of the members of this forum who bothered to vote have spoken. Obviously, that means definitions do not matter.
A better means of knowing what the majority thinks is putting up a strawpoll and posting it on a few reddits (mmorpg/pcgaming/destiny as main reddits I can think of) and also putting it on MMORPG.com (like this poll) and not sure what other gaming site since don't really use them. Whatever game forums whoever makes the strawpoll if anyone does. Also put on facebook if use that.
Then you won't get a bunch of jaded MMORPG voters praying for the glory days of the old MMORPGs to come back and all the newcomers to go away. Then you'll get a far more proper, and far more widespread results of what people think.
I'll concede if the majority vote that destiny 2 isn't an MMO, if whoever decides to make a strawpoll and posting it on various sites for a far wide range of voters. If still shows destiny 2 is not an MMO, then guess that be the majority.
Posting on one random forum doesn't show much, especially since this forum has a bunch of jaded vets who hate new MMOs.
The real point is that "massively" actually has a meaning and there are a few people who argue even though they have no basis (trolls or stupid). It's a dumb argument because there is no real argument. It can't be an mmo because it does not include all guidelines that would make it an mmo the same way online poker games are not MMOs.
What makes it an MMO? Because again as I've brought up before, DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) is an MMO. Turbine calls it an MMO and they are the developers. Everyone in the past years have called it an MMO. DDO however is heavily instanced, smaller instances than found in warframe and definitely by far smaller "hub" than found in Destiny 2 or maybe about same size. When I played years ago, I don't remember exact number, but I think it was a couple dozen people people and I never saw huge amounts.
Why is that an MMO then but not destiny 2 or many other similar games? Again, DDO has a hub...like Destiny 2...but even smaller (or maybe near the same size)...warframe has a hub and it too is larger/same size than DDO's hub...DDO hub was pretty small...
I am failing to see the difference between them.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I dont agree , and fortunatley for the MMORPG genre, the Dev houses are moving away from convulting and bastardizing an entire genre like they did for 10 years in attempt to pull in more sales from the Xbox generation .. If you watch the trends you will notice that they are moving back to catergorizing there games properly .. They realize that by properly labeling there games it will target the proper audiences and not dissapoint others ..
Well, "whatever". We'll see over the next few years how the term is used. Maybe you are correct and they are moving away from using it in any instance where the game allows for a very large amount of people to connect, but maybe over the next few years some marketing person is going to pull it out of the hat and "reinvent it in some new and exciting way".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
People who wrote long posts about critical thinking, reasoning, the use of the English language, and how to parse the 3 words?
Given that this is the most popular topic on the front page of this forum, beating everything else by a large margin (except the sticky), i would say many here. But probably a extremely small minority in the US gaming population.
How many players does it support at the same time?
If <32 then 100% no. 32-64 uncertain. >64 is yes.
Wrong. Massively is subjective, I understand. But it certainly is not a number that is "standard". 64 is common. No one is going to go "holy shit, thats a massive amount of people!!" when playing a 64 player game. For it to be massively multiplayer, there should numbers well above the norm. So in this case, while we can't give an exact number and people can argue it to death, it must at least be in the hundreds.
How many players does it support at the same time?
If <32 then 100% no. 32-64 uncertain. >64 is yes.
Wrong. Massively is subjective, I understand. But it certainly is not a number that is "standard". 64 is common. No one is going to go "holy shit, thats a massive amount of people!!" when playing a 64 player game. For it to be massively multiplayer, there should numbers well above the norm. So in this case, while we can't give an exact number and people can argue it to death, it must at least be in the hundreds.
You just said "massively" is subjective. So why does it have to be in the hundreds? Wouldn't a guy who only have play 4 vs 4 thinks SUBJECTIVELY that 64 is a big number? In fact, isn't 128 pvp sounds big when you first play it?
And why not a thousand? If you agree it is subjective, it is subjective. 64 is as subjective as 640 or 6400.
I'd say it lacks the 'massive' to be considered an MMO.
When I think massive... I think 200 players congregating to meet 'Lord British' in Ultima for the first time, only to have 1 user flamestrike the king to ashes.
I'd say it lacks the 'massive' to be considered an MMO.
When I think massive... I think 200 players congregating to meet 'Lord British' in Ultima for the first time, only to have 1 user flamestrike the king to ashes.
....that was back in 94....
Good point, but it depends. If there are only 10 active players on WoW, is it still a MMO?
I'd say it lacks the 'massive' to be considered an MMO.
When I think massive... I think 200 players congregating to meet 'Lord British' in Ultima for the first time, only to have 1 user flamestrike the king to ashes.
....that was back in 94....
Good point, but it depends. If there are only 10 active players on WoW, is it still a MMO?
Is that all that is possible? You have your answer.
I'd say it lacks the 'massive' to be considered an MMO.
When I think massive... I think 200 players congregating to meet 'Lord British' in Ultima for the first time, only to have 1 user flamestrike the king to ashes.
....that was back in 94....
Good point, but it depends. If there are only 10 active players on WoW, is it still a MMO?
Is that all that is possible? You have your answer.
There are certainly wow like games with very few active players before they closed down. Say ... Vanguard. Is it a MMO if there are only 10 playing for the night?
There are certainly wow like games with very few active players before they closed down. Say ... Vanguard. Is it a MMO if there are only 10 playing for the night?
If you play a multiplayer game solo is it no longer a multiplayer game?
If you play a game capable of hosting hundreds or thousands of players in the same area with less than hundreds or thousands of players is it no longer massively multiplayer?
We define games based on their capabilities. Not whatever you are currently doing. If it has the capacity to be massively multiplayer it is an MMO. If the max number of players you can have in any one place at any one time is like 13 then it's not.
Comments
I refuse to play destiny 2 because I know the game just sucks for me. But when I start getting days off from work, I may be able to play again with my brothers (i moved timezones so it is tough now).
We'll probably end up playing Rocket league together.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
While I still think if an mmorpg as a single game world where some "ginormous" amount of people might come in contact with each other, It's not really "beyond the pale" to me to think that it could also mean "some ginormous amount of people logging in and then partying up/being matched with a small subgroup of that initial group.
And while there are plenty of "real mmo's" to play, there aren't a huge amount of them in production at the moment.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
They spent 10 years throwing MMO label on anything in trying to pull in sales from the MMO market..I think the move away will only help the MMO genre as it gets back to its roots ..
The Devs realize that its not such a good thing to place that label on for many reasons .. And for sales its not neccassary as has been proven by recent releases , you can expect this trend to continue ..
Im a heavy heavy investor in ATVI, FCMKF , EA .. etc.. there are many reasons they are moving away from that tag .. Its calculated and intentional
If we're going to call anything with multiplayer an MMO, there's no longer a point in using the term. Just call them all multiplayer. It has nothing to do with sour grapes regarding the genre entries (I play more single player and Mobas than I do MMOs these days), it has nothing to do (at least to me) with attempting to get a certain game made or not made. It has to do with delineating one type of experience from another, which is the entire point of genre descriptors on the first place.
If someone wishes to be willfully ignorant, have at it. But it doesn't change the fact that the term was created to delineate two different types of game experiences and continues to signal that difference.
Then you won't get a bunch of jaded MMORPG voters praying for the glory days of the old MMORPGs to come back and all the newcomers to go away. Then you'll get a far more proper, and far more widespread results of what people think.
I'll concede if the majority vote that destiny 2 isn't an MMO, if whoever decides to make a strawpoll and posting it on various sites for a far wide range of voters. If still shows destiny 2 is not an MMO, then guess that be the majority.
Posting on one random forum doesn't show much, especially since this forum has a bunch of jaded vets who hate new MMOs.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Why is that an MMO then but not destiny 2 or many other similar games? Again, DDO has a hub...like Destiny 2...but even smaller (or maybe near the same size)...warframe has a hub and it too is larger/same size than DDO's hub...DDO hub was pretty small...
I am failing to see the difference between them.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
People who wrote long posts about critical thinking, reasoning, the use of the English language, and how to parse the 3 words?
Given that this is the most popular topic on the front page of this forum, beating everything else by a large margin (except the sticky), i would say many here. But probably a extremely small minority in the US gaming population.
You just said "massively" is subjective. So why does it have to be in the hundreds? Wouldn't a guy who only have play 4 vs 4 thinks SUBJECTIVELY that 64 is a big number? In fact, isn't 128 pvp sounds big when you first play it?
And why not a thousand? If you agree it is subjective, it is subjective. 64 is as subjective as 640 or 6400.
You can run into other players, whom are playing simultaneously with you.
Has self-created avatars.
Superhero MMO imo.
When I think massive... I think 200 players congregating to meet 'Lord British' in Ultima for the first time, only to have 1 user flamestrike the king to ashes.
....that was back in 94....
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/comment/7235010/#Comment_7235010
Good point, but it depends. If there are only 10 active players on WoW, is it still a MMO?
Is that all that is possible? You have your answer.
There are certainly wow like games with very few active players before they closed down. Say ... Vanguard. Is it a MMO if there are only 10 playing for the night?
If you play a game capable of hosting hundreds or thousands of players in the same area with less than hundreds or thousands of players is it no longer massively multiplayer?
We define games based on their capabilities. Not whatever you are currently doing. If it has the capacity to be massively multiplayer it is an MMO. If the max number of players you can have in any one place at any one time is like 13 then it's not.