Two hundred people in one place is massive in my opinion so any game that allows 200+ on a server is an MMO.
Thanks for helping to clear that up.
EDIT: Now that I’m thinking of it, ‘large’ is defined as:
”Greater than average in amount or size”
In my rural lifestyle, ten people together is “average”
So i ammend my previous statement. More than ten people in one place is massive so any game that allows more than ten people on a server is an MMO.
I get the sarcasm post, but plucking numbers from a random other issue to try and measure relativity doesn't really fit.
We had and have the baseline to compare. It's not a mystery. You can play the Battlefield franchise and interact with 63 other gamers simultaneously in the "game world," for example. Acting as if 4-16 is Massively, when you still won't include Battlefield itself, isn't even close to rational (not submitting that's what you're doing, this is counterpoint to the argument in general).
It wasn't sarcasm. Between you and Scorchien, air traffic controllers must be having one hell of a day.
My default choice every year since 2012 is usually GW2, but IMO in 2017 Warframe had the biggest game transformation for good(from that list) and it's only the beginning.
ESO all the way for me. Fully voiced questing. Expansive content. Exciting locales to visit. Flexible builds (great for PvE). Different skill lines. Justice system. Deep crafting. Slow progression with character development leveraging over 700 (champion) points. Dungeons. Housing. Of course fishing and Transmog coming next month? I'm good.
I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.
Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.
Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.
I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.
This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO.
My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?
Warframe is universe of planets where thousands of players gather, chat, play together (in instances) and in larger zones, and when they log off the worlds, characters, and everything persist. Literally the only thing it's missing is a unified world where more players can interact at once and Eidolon took a step in that direction. And it's the direction they plan on going for the future. If anything, Warframe is more MMO now than ever before.
What I think stops CoD and Overwatch from being "MMO" in my eyes is that they don't have a real persistent state of being as a world. But yet, they do persist in the form of character progression and always being on. You have to face it, the term MMO is broader than we can ever prescribe. MMORPG, I am fine with being a bit more confined in its definition. But MMO can mean so very very much more.
I may still do a best MMORPG player's choice, where some more candidates are included, and others excluded.
Not sure why the MMO is needed to describe mere multiplayer gaming.
It's confusing, it's arbitrary, and it's inconsistent. All terrible traits for something that's supposed to describe something else.
Just call the list the best multiplayer RPGs, then do the list with the MMOs that are, well, actually MMOs.
Either that, or I look forward to your explaining how Divinity: Original Sin 2 didn't make this list.
I do feel bad for some of you who are so easily confounded by these things. Is it difficult finding the right games to play?
Although I noticed for someone who is confused you seem to clearly be able to differentiate between various ways that MMO works for each of these games (like how WoW and EVE aren't the same kind of MMO at all).
So is it really that confusing? It doesn't seem so to me, especially with how clearly you explained it with the traits, and so succinctly too.
Please, do give me the objective definition being applied in this list that doesn't create more issues than it solves as a genre descriptor.
Don't worry; I'll wait.
What does that have to do with my response? How about you go first since you so clearly have this sorted out. What is an objective and indisputable fact-based definition of MMO? I don't need to have one because I don't care. You're the one who's upset that someone isn't using the phrase how you want.
So clearly define the phrase MMO. Remember it must be - fact-based - indisputable - objective
Then you can point out to Bill and the rest who "don't get it" exactly where they went wrong. It should be easy right since it's so obvious.
With all respect mate, I haven't seen anyone who doesn't care about a definition yet everytime the topic comes around monopolize the forum pvp
You do care, you want the definition to cover more games and you know in what way, there are some others who don't.
Now here's my piece, instead of calling whatever new hip game out an MMO, let's have Bill and the gang define the MMO term instead of doing vague statements like evolved. This is MMORPG.com, you set the definition (my apologies if you already have and I've missed it), this is how it works when it comes down to other stuff as well; either the inventor defines it or the critics.
I like to see a solid, clear, new definition and the logic behind it. That's be a step forward. Without that, the same pvp continues till one of us dies. I hope that's me, I can't stand the news of you passing by
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Voted for ESO. With the recent release of Morrowind and Clockwork city it showed me how much effort and time the devs had put on to their game and both turned out very successful. I definitely recommend it to everyone!
I voted for Warframe, despite wanting to vote for ESO or GW2. I think Digital Extremes has had an amazing year with Warframe, and the open world direction they're going with the game is bound to make it an even better 2018.
Really Bill? As managing editor of MMOrpg.com you vote for a non-mmorpg that is on a list for best MMORPG of 2017.
Sheesh... I think your vote typifies the sad state of the genre at present.
I, sadly, cannot vote for any simply because I don't play any of them anymore.
This is for best MMO. Warframe is an MMO.
My apologies for the insertion of rpg in my previous post. I am very curious as to how a 4 person co-op game is a mmo. By this standard, wouldn't call of duty, overwatch, and virtually any fps and arpg be mmo's?
If the difference is the "RPG" portion... You are correct, every online game is now an MMO because you're always playing the role of someone or something.
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.
Fact is online multiplayer games are really popular now and this site wants in on that. I get it and really like playing some of them. What bugs me is that instead of making a delineation based on function, which is where the acronym came from in the first place, where the definition has meaning it's now apparently based on marketing opportunities.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
That was all a precursor so that lists like these can be made.........
But WTF is this really?
This moving target definition of an MMO was set up so they could wind up Putting completely dissimilar games like GW2 and Destiny 2 in the came comparative lists for the benefit of mmorpg.com.
Now mmorpg.com gets to feature any game that requires an Internet connection, and put it up against BDO, GW, FFXIV, ESO etc, regardless of what that game actually is.
It's not like it isnt' obvious. mmorpg.com changed from mmorpgs to mmo/rpg. But in the end that wasn't enough. because some games are neither. If a PVP game features 4v4, it's neither an MMO nor is it an RPG. But Bill likes the game and wants it featured here. Or maybe the game wants to be featured on this site. Thus an "expanded definition" of the term MMO and/or RPG is required to justify featuring it. That is, if we stick to the MMO / RPG formula.
I don't understand why the site doesn't just use the justification of "Overlapping Audience". IT makes perfect sense that this site covers a game like Warframe. Or Destiny, or LoL. But don't put some 4 player lobby game in a comparison list as BDO and gall it a day because you like both games. becasue not everyone does.
Otherwise this site becomes www.bcuzbillsasyso.com
These days we spend more time arguing about what are MMOs rather than discussing the merits of each title. I don't disagree that definitions are important but I would rather discuss the actual games than whether they are this or that.
These days we spend more time arguing about what are MMOs rather than discussing the merits of each title. I don't disagree that definitions are important but I would rather discuss the actual games than whether they are this or that.
Which would still happen if Bill covered those games without trying to force an inconsistent definition on us.
If the difference is the "RPG" portion... You are correct, every online game is now an MMO because you're always playing the role of someone or something.
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.
Fact is online multiplayer games are really popular now and this site wants in on that. I get it and really like playing some of them. What bugs me is that instead of making a delineation based on function, which is where the acronym came from in the first place, where the definition has meaning it's now apparently based on marketing opportunities.
Is the word "Massive" not always used for marketing purposes?
It doesn't matter if I talk about my massive d***, massive savings, massive performance, massive amounts of players. I want to attract attention. Is it now in order to get a girlfriend, to make millions, or 30 years ago to make people aware of a new form of games which are massive fun to play. I find it impossible to take a word like massive very serious, because it seems to be born from subjectivity and driven by the fear for being meaningless, or maybe just average sized.
MMORPGs are no longer the big thing it used to be when the website was created. If I remember well no one writing for MMORPG.com can actually life from it. Even if they would stretch the definitions in order to generate clicks can you really fault them for that?
I used to hate WOW, because it was popular, it attracted all those kids who had no idea what it meant to play a "real MMORPGs". It went from being Indie/Alternative to POP and I was no longer part of small, elite, brilliant, genius group of people, the only once who actually understand the meaning of 42. From one day to another I became average until I learned to define myself not through my massive d***, rather then though the fact that it seemed to worked wonders for it's size. Now I don't care if a Destiny 2 is labeled as MMO or RTS, if it's seen as shit or the best game ever. If I like it I play it and might vote for it here. If I don't like it I stay away from it and vote for something else, or maybe not at all. And instead of going on and on about what game belongs in the list, or are in actual fact all RTS games, I rather impress my wife with my massive cooking skills. The kids finish their plates and I can play whatever I want.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
That was all a precursor so that lists like these can be made.........
But WTF is this really?
This moving target definition of an MMO was set up so they could wind up Putting completely dissimilar games like GW2 and Destiny 2 in the came comparative lists for the benefit of mmorpg.com.
Now mmorpg.com gets to feature any game that requires an Internet connection, and put it up against BDO, GW, FFXIV, ESO etc, regardless of what that game actually is.
It's not like it isnt' obvious. mmorpg.com changed from mmorpgs to mmo/rpg. But in the end that wasn't enough. because some games are neither. If a PVP game features 4v4, it's neither an MMO nor is it an RPG. But Bill likes the game and wants it featured here. Or maybe the game wants to be featured on this site. Thus an "expanded definition" of the term MMO and/or RPG is required to justify featuring it. That is, if we stick to the MMO / RPG formula.
I don't understand why the site doesn't just use the justification of "Overlapping Audience". IT makes perfect sense that this site covers a game like Warframe. Or Destiny, or LoL. But don't put some 4 player lobby game in a comparison list as BDO and gall it a day because you like both games. becasue not everyone does.
Otherwise this site becomes www.bcuzbillsasyso.com
Yup, thats the bit I don't understand. I have absolutely zero problem with this website covering other genres, in fact I encourage it because, as you say, there is a lot of overlapping interest from the MMO crowd. Whilst MMORPG remains my favourite genre, I do play lots of other genres and I like reading about them here.
Just get the category correct.
If a suitable category doesn't exist, create one!
That way, Bill and team can still write whatever they want, we still get all the content we already enjoy, just with the added bonus that proper categorisation increases the usability of the site and improves the "authority" of the authors on this site.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if you Google around you'll see that the expansion of the definition isn't actually that widespread. Developers (if you exclude mobile) get it right 99% of the time. Players within the genre usually get it right too. The people who most often get it wrong are journalists and newbie/casual gamers.
Even Wikipedia or Financial times have correct-ish definitions guys. Stop doing ridicule by furthing this non-existent debate for any sane and lirate person.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
An expert's opinion is only as valid as the facts it stands on.
Garriott calls Shroud an MMO, something a lot of people here don't agree with. Do you agree Shroud is an MMORPG? The creator of the term and "expert" calls it one.
Raph has also said that many things, including Facebook, is an MMO and that much of our online world and interactivity has become "mmo-ified".
You can't even come up with a definition yourself so who are you to criticize? It's a case of the incapable criticizing the imperfect. You all could start a site called the "Incapable Authority" and tell others what they're not doing good enough about things you can't actually do yourselves.
You are quite right that the experts do say some odd things at times, so make your own mind up. I stand by the observation that if the publisher does not call their game a MMO, it is not a MMO. For some of the staff on here to insist such games are MMO's is a bit odd.
As for something like Shroud, decided on a case by case basis. As it has not launched I reserve my opinion. As was found in the thread about definition, defining what a MMO is, indeed defining most things is a can of worms.
It is important to be as accurate as possible when we describe something, so MMO, MMOFPS, MOBA's, Co-op etc do help us to know straight of the bat what we are talking about. That's why it is a good idea to use them as is appropriate.
With all respect mate, I haven't seen anyone who doesn't care about a definition yet everytime the topic comes around monopolize the forum pvp
You do care, you want the definition to cover more games and you know in what way, there are some others who don't.
Now here's my piece, instead of calling whatever new hip game out an MMO, let's have Bill and the gang define the MMO term instead of doing vague statements like evolved. This is MMORPG.com, you set the definition (my apologies if you already have and I've missed it), this is how it works when it comes down to other stuff as well; either the inventor defines it or the critics.
I like to see a solid, clear, new definition and the logic behind it. That's be a step forward. Without that, the same pvp continues till one of us dies. I hope that's me, I can't stand the news of you passing by
I care that people have to derail every topic with their pedantic wanking. I care that they have to bring their bitterness and sling barbs at the rest of the MMO playerbase for not doing it their way.
If I cared about the actual definition I would bring it up. But I don't so I don't.
Since people don't want to talk about actually playing games in the forums I'm not left with much to discuss with you all. And since clicks are important to the site and staff I've made it a little game to engage threads and see how much clicky stuff I can help generate.
That can be a lot of work and the easiest way to engage on that level is to pick out the most obviously horrible reasoning and deconstruct it.
You want Bill "and the gang" to do the work of making a definition for you, work that those who have a hangup with the definition can't do themselves. Bill doesn't apparently have a problem with wrapping his head around the idea so why should he be responsible for ensuring everyone else can. If you go into a 400 level mathematics class with 100 level knowledge, it's not the professor's job to get you up to speed. Bill isn't the inventor here. He's not responsible for making it all work for you. No one here is.
You don't have to accept it, but until you can clearly and consistently define the boundaries of your phrase and how others should follow it, then you're in no position to criticize them for not keeping in those boundaries. That's why it's up to your groups position to present that fact based definition.
Less hostility would've worked, but alright!
You're accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you has lessen intelligence--at least that's what I get from your math class example--Bill is not a teacher here, and members aren't children attending his class. I bet many people visiting these forums got a couple of extra decades of experience over Bill in the industry.
I never said I don't understand the definition and I want someone to help me understand it. I suggested a solution to this constant debate. It's rather ironic how people in your group believe the term has changed, evolved, or expanded, yet you ask others for facts and explanations or they are in no position to speak their mind or criticize, it usually works the other way around; it's up to the group claiming the change to come up with their new definition, and yes, it should be fact-based. It's a legit, logical, in no way harmful neither insulting suggestion. And I am not suggesting this to a random gamer off the street, I am suggesting this to the person who made the claim, is a professional, and works for this site.
Of course this suggestion can be ignored for many reasons. But certainly members' lack of knowledge or understanding of this "wisdom" is not one of them. And it might not resolve anything. But at least we can discuss the reasons instead of hip freshly hyped games getting the label. If that's the case, I understand it. But let's stop pretending there's an evolution going on and us old lads have become too much of an imbecile to understand the current. And if there are other reasons, for the 17th time, I'm all ears to hear it.
Nah mate, I think you care as much as others even more than most about the definition. You just want it to apply to other games you believe fit the category. Hence the forum PvP. There are several topics going on about games. And most of the people you've been arguing with do participate in almost all of those topics.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
An expert's opinion is only as valid as the facts it stands on.
Garriott calls Shroud an MMO, something a lot of people here don't agree with. Do you agree Shroud is an MMORPG? The creator of the term and "expert" calls it one.
Raph has also said that many things, including Facebook, is an MMO and that much of our online world and interactivity has become "mmo-ified".
You can't even come up with a definition yourself so who are you to criticize? It's a case of the incapable criticizing the imperfect. You all could start a site called the "Incapable Authority" and tell others what they're not doing good enough about things you can't actually do yourselves.
I have a very clear definition myself:
MMOG = "A game that supports 500+ players within the same virtual environment."
Virtual environment being defined as a gamespace that players can traverse without loading screens, in which they can play the game.
I'm willing to drop the number (500) down to 250+. The reason I'm willing to let the number change is because "massively" is a comparative term, so as what you are comparing it to changes (other multiplayer online games), so should this. Given that 128 tends to be the max cap for standard multiplayer games, just pick a number that is "massively" bigger. I chose 500, because "double" and "triple" to me don't count as "massively" bigger, but 4x is getting into that realm.
This definition holds up against english comprehension. This definition is easy to understand. This definition matches up against the majority of games that defined the genre initially. This definition has absolutely nothing to do with features, so it can be universally applied to all genres of gaming.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
Garriott? You mean the guy who’s building “Instances Online ” (aka Shroud of the Avatar) that can barely support 50 people in one instance? He can’t even get 200 people to regularly play his game.
Comments
~~ postlarval ~~
Warframe has my vote.
You do care, you want the definition to cover more games and you know in what way, there are some others who don't.
Now here's my piece, instead of calling whatever new hip game out an MMO, let's have Bill and the gang define the MMO term instead of doing vague statements like evolved. This is MMORPG.com, you set the definition (my apologies if you already have and I've missed it), this is how it works when it comes down to other stuff as well; either the inventor defines it or the critics.
I like to see a solid, clear, new definition and the logic behind it. That's be a step forward. Without that, the same pvp continues till one of us dies. I hope that's me, I can't stand the news of you passing by
If the difference is the "RPG" portion... You are correct, every online game is now an MMO because you're always playing the role of someone or something.
role-play·ing game
noun
noun: role-playing game; plural noun: role-playing games; noun: rôle-playing game; plural noun: rôle-playing games; noun: role-play game; plural noun: role-play games
a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters who engage in adventures, typically in a particular computerized fantasy setting overseen by a referee.
Fact is online multiplayer games are really popular now and this site wants in on that. I get it and really like playing some of them. What bugs me is that instead of making a delineation based on function, which is where the acronym came from in the first place, where the definition has meaning it's now apparently based on marketing opportunities.
Yeah it sure does make the top 10 lists, but it still never ended up winning GOTY.
Bill et al actually did an editorial on the definition of MMO a while back.
https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmorpgcoms-weekly-watercooler-whats-in-an-acronym-the-mmo-definition-debate-1000011697
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
But WTF is this really?
This moving target definition of an MMO was set up so they could wind up Putting completely dissimilar games like GW2 and Destiny 2 in the came comparative lists for the benefit of mmorpg.com.
Now mmorpg.com gets to feature any game that requires an Internet connection, and put it up against BDO, GW, FFXIV, ESO etc, regardless of what that game actually is.
It's not like it isnt' obvious. mmorpg.com changed from mmorpgs to mmo/rpg. But in the end that wasn't enough. because some games are neither. If a PVP game features 4v4, it's neither an MMO nor is it an RPG. But Bill likes the game and wants it featured here. Or maybe the game wants to be featured on this site. Thus an "expanded definition" of the term MMO and/or RPG is required to justify featuring it. That is, if we stick to the MMO / RPG formula.
I don't understand why the site doesn't just use the justification of "Overlapping Audience". IT makes perfect sense that this site covers a game like Warframe. Or Destiny, or LoL. But don't put some 4 player lobby game in a comparison list as BDO and gall it a day because you like both games. becasue not everyone does.
Otherwise this site becomes www.bcuzbillsasyso.com
It doesn't matter if I talk about my massive d***, massive savings, massive performance, massive amounts of players.
I want to attract attention. Is it now in order to get a girlfriend, to make millions, or 30 years ago to make people aware of a new form of games which are massive fun to play.
I find it impossible to take a word like massive very serious, because it seems to be born from subjectivity and driven by the fear for being meaningless, or maybe just average sized.
MMORPGs are no longer the big thing it used to be when the website was created. If I remember well no one writing for MMORPG.com can actually life from it. Even if they would stretch the definitions in order to generate clicks can you really fault them for that?
I used to hate WOW, because it was popular, it attracted all those kids who had no idea what it meant to play a "real MMORPGs". It went from being Indie/Alternative to POP and I was no longer part of small, elite, brilliant, genius group of people, the only once who actually understand the meaning of 42. From one day to another I became average until I learned to define myself not through my massive d***, rather then though the fact that it seemed to worked wonders for it's size.
Now I don't care if a Destiny 2 is labeled as MMO or RTS, if it's seen as shit or the best game ever. If I like it I play it and might vote for it here. If I don't like it I stay away from it and vote for something else, or maybe not at all. And instead of going on and on about what game belongs in the list, or are in actual fact all RTS games, I rather impress my wife with my massive cooking skills. The kids finish their plates and I can play whatever I want.
Just get the category correct.
If a suitable category doesn't exist, create one!
That way, Bill and team can still write whatever they want, we still get all the content we already enjoy, just with the added bonus that proper categorisation increases the usability of the site and improves the "authority" of the authors on this site.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, if you Google around you'll see that the expansion of the definition isn't actually that widespread. Developers (if you exclude mobile) get it right 99% of the time. Players within the genre usually get it right too. The people who most often get it wrong are journalists and newbie/casual gamers.
Would be awsome if this site actually started to go for the REAL MMORPGs
You are quite right that the experts do say some odd things at times, so make your own mind up. I stand by the observation that if the publisher does not call their game a MMO, it is not a MMO. For some of the staff on here to insist such games are MMO's is a bit odd.
As for something like Shroud, decided on a case by case basis. As it has not launched I reserve my opinion. As was found in the thread about definition, defining what a MMO is, indeed defining most things is a can of worms.
It is important to be as accurate as possible when we describe something, so MMO, MMOFPS, MOBA's, Co-op etc do help us to know straight of the bat what we are talking about. That's why it is a good idea to use them as is appropriate.
You're accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you has lessen intelligence--at least that's what I get from your math class example--Bill is not a teacher here, and members aren't children attending his class. I bet many people visiting these forums got a couple of extra decades of experience over Bill in the industry.
I never said I don't understand the definition and I want someone to help me understand it. I suggested a solution to this constant debate. It's rather ironic how people in your group believe the term has changed, evolved, or expanded, yet you ask others for facts and explanations or they are in no position to speak their mind or criticize, it usually works the other way around; it's up to the group claiming the change to come up with their new definition, and yes, it should be fact-based. It's a legit, logical, in no way harmful neither insulting suggestion. And I am not suggesting this to a random gamer off the street, I am suggesting this to the person who made the claim, is a professional, and works for this site.
Of course this suggestion can be ignored for many reasons. But certainly members' lack of knowledge or understanding of this "wisdom" is not one of them. And it might not resolve anything. But at least we can discuss the reasons instead of hip freshly hyped games getting the label. If that's the case, I understand it. But let's stop pretending there's an evolution going on and us old lads have become too much of an imbecile to understand the current. And if there are other reasons, for the 17th time, I'm all ears to hear it.
Nah mate, I think you care as much as others even more than most about the definition. You just want it to apply to other games you believe fit the category. Hence the forum PvP. There are several topics going on about games. And most of the people you've been arguing with do participate in almost all of those topics.
MMOG = "A game that supports 500+ players within the same virtual environment."
Virtual environment being defined as a gamespace that players can traverse without loading screens, in which they can play the game.
I'm willing to drop the number (500) down to 250+. The reason I'm willing to let the number change is because "massively" is a comparative term, so as what you are comparing it to changes (other multiplayer online games), so should this. Given that 128 tends to be the max cap for standard multiplayer games, just pick a number that is "massively" bigger. I chose 500, because "double" and "triple" to me don't count as "massively" bigger, but 4x is getting into that realm.
This definition holds up against english comprehension. This definition is easy to understand. This definition matches up against the majority of games that defined the genre initially. This definition has absolutely nothing to do with features, so it can be universally applied to all genres of gaming.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
What would he know about defining MMO?
~~ postlarval ~~