I think my initial reaction of 'emmm' with a rising inflection just changed to 'emmm' with a descending inflection. At best, a monotone inflection.
The idea of survival with phasing/instancing/private servers just doesn't work for me. FO76 will, in all likelihood, be more heavily focused on the FPS combat aspects rather than any RPG elements. Conan: Exiles with power armor. Who thought this was a good idea?
I'm beginning to get tired of the whole 'survivor of a nuclear war crawls out of their secluded vault' concept. How about early Martian colonists returning to Earth to try to salvage the situation after a global apocalypse? Your astronaut character would likely start with better tech than anything found under a glowing heap of debris, so there wouldn't necessarily need to be any gear progression.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I think my initial reaction of 'emmm' with a rising inflection just changed to 'emmm' with a descending inflection. At best, a monotone inflection.
The idea of survival with phasing/instancing/private servers just doesn't work for me. FO76 will, in all likelihood, be more heavily focused on the FPS combat aspects rather than any RPG elements. Conan: Exiles with power armor. Who thought this was a good idea?
I'm beginning to get tired of the whole 'survivor of a nuclear war crawls out of their secluded vault' concept. How about early Martian colonists returning to Earth to try to salvage the situation after a global apocalypse? Your astronaut character would likely start with better tech than anything found under a glowing heap of debris, so there wouldn't necessarily need to be any gear progression.
I'd like to see more before I let myself get hyped, too.
I don't mind a shared world game, but Destiny became pretty bland pretty quick for me because, as you say, there was very little focus on the RPG aspects. However, considering Bungie's portfolio, that wasn't entirely unexpected.
Bethesda has a very different portfolio. It will be interesting to see where the majority of the gameplay focus goes: shooter, or RPG.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
[mod edit]
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
In an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some people here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Lol, no player ran servers...
So we get all the toxicity of your average survival title without the chance to opt out of it and just enjoy the game with friends.
No thanks.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
In an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some people here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
"Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember mmo meaning whatever somebody wants it to me"
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? What is the "specific genre" what are the "specific criteria" you are referring to?
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Let’s agree to disagree on what an MMO is, as my opinion is vastly different from yours it seems. Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Rift, Age of Conan. These are MMOs in my mind. Games like Destiny or Path of Exiles are not. Conan Exiles, Rust, Dark and Light and ARK are not MMOs, yet it seems some people may classify them as such. In my mind, MMO still stands for MMORPG, all falling into the same genre with the same criteria to fit that genre. Even having 200 people in an FPS server isn’t an MMO, it’s just a server that can hold more players than your typical 60 player limit server.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
Do you think?
IMO when it comes to PvE in RPG's I'd like to know whether it's muliplayer or not as singleplayer games still dominate in that regard.
It's the massive part that has become irrelevant and has yet to make PvE more appealing.
Most of the great times I've had with MMOPvE has been with a small bunch of people, not massive.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Let’s agree to disagree on what an MMO is, as my opinion is vastly different from yours it seems. Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Rift, Age of Conan. These are MMOs in my mind. Games like Destiny or Path of Exiles are not. Conan Exiles, Rust, Dark and Light and ARK are not MMOs, yet it seems some people may classify them as such. In my mind, MMO still stands for MMORPG, all falling into the same genre with the same criteria to fit that genre. Even having 200 people in an FPS server isn’t an MMO, it’s just a server that can hold more players than your typical 60 player limit server.
I don't really know what I would classify as an MMO and what I wouldn't. I just know that it's hard to get a clear definition. I agree on what you classify as MMOs, and in most of those cases I agree on what isn't an MMO.
I'm not saying definitively whether FO76 is an MMO yet. I don't know enough about it, but lucky for me, we only have to wait a few months before I can play it. Whether it is or isn't an MMO will be second fiddle to whether it'll be a good game anyways. I guess we can only wait and see.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Let’s agree to disagree on what an MMO is, as my opinion is vastly different from yours it seems. Ultima Online, Everquest, World of Warcraft, Rift, Age of Conan. These are MMOs in my mind. Games like Destiny or Path of Exiles are not. Conan Exiles, Rust, Dark and Light and ARK are not MMOs, yet it seems some people may classify them as such. In my mind, MMO still stands for MMORPG, all falling into the same genre with the same criteria to fit that genre. Even having 200 people in an FPS server isn’t an MMO, it’s just a server that can hold more players than your typical 60 player limit server.
I’ve seen absolutely nothing about Fallout 76 that would make it an MMO, other than a misinformed author calling it such and misinformed forum members repeating the same thing. It seems every type of gamer has slithered out of their holes to comment on this article when most articles on this site don’t reach over 50 comments and that’s being generous. All I’m seeing are a lot of fan boys getting hyped up for nothing, willing to defend this game with their life when someone says it will be a flop.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
At this point most people that play online games are playing with friends and clans. The solo players do their own thing but positive interaction in video games with random players is almost none existent today.
With matchmaking, toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players. We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.
*Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion . I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.
You may and probably WILL be forced into pvp, that is what people need to understand and what Todd was very vague about.
But once again you dont lose your stuff or progress.
And that 4chan leak said they are still working on FO5
I guess will be interesting to see when they say you don't lose your stuff or progress if your camp/base gets nuked. Also weren't players supposed to fight over territory. Sounds like you can lose that stuff just not maybe the gear you wear.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
At this point most people that play online games are playing with friends and clans. The solo players do their own thing but positive interaction in video games with random players is almost none existent today.
With matchmaking, toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players. We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.
*Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion . I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.
Actually, the ESA consumer report shows that players coming into the game alone edge out gamers who seem to play with friends in general. There's still more players buying into multiplayer games to find folks to play with than to enter the game with a preset group of companions. The percentage of gamers who play with family/friends was just above 40%, actually. EDIT- that also doesn't mean those gamers always play with family/friends. The data made no distinction there.
As MMORPGs continue to ignore what makes the genre unique, and instead attempt to circumvent it, the market share as a whole of the industry will only continue to get smaller.
The one positive thing I'll say for crowdfunding: they seem to be focusing on the genre's strengths, instead of trying to circumvent them.
It is a multiplayer rpg-survival game, not a MASSIVE multiplayer game.
It's an mmo with multiplayer rpg-survival game aspects.
They only showed a bunch of players. When they show hundreds of players together in an open map I can get convinced that it is an MMO.
"Hundreds of players" so which games are mmos today according to you ? I don't know any games right now that you regularly see 100s on the same screen.
An MMO is a game that supports thousands of players in a persistent world map. Lineage and Lineage 2 are classic examples of this.
Says who? Before you said 100s now we are into the 1000s. I don't understand where some of you get this idea you get to decide what is and what is not an mmo. I missed the memo where random guys on the internet are in charge of this.
The idea of what an MMO is has been stagnant for nearly 2 decades. Why do you get to decide that the meaning of the genre gets to just change when this shit Fallout was announced. Seriously... get off of Bethesda’s nuts. This game will suck just like everything else they’ve created over the past 10 years.
There's a difference between a games ability and the actuality of what to expect in a game.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
I’n an MMO you could have everyone on the server stand in the same spot and there would be thousands of people “on the screen.” It doesn’t matter if people are spread out or in the same place, they’re all sharing the same persistent world together. Even having a hundred people playing together on a server isn’t massive. Many FPS’ do that but that doesn’t classify them as MMOs. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember MMO meaning whatever somebody wants it to mean, it’s a specific genre with specific criteria. With the logic of some perspective ole here, I might as well start calling Arma 3 an MMO because there can be 200 people on a server at a time.
Your first mistake is thinking that MMO means you have to have a persistent world. MMO just means Massively Multiplayer and Online... there are MMOFPS games, MMORPGs, MMORacing games... and it doesn't always mean they need a persistent world, just that they need an avenue to play together.
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Agreed, technology is moving towards blurring the line.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
At this point most people that play online games are playing with friends and clans. The solo players do their own thing but positive interaction in video games with random players is almost none existent today.
With matchmaking, toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players. We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.
*Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion . I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.
Actually, the ESA consumer report shows that players coming into the game alone edge out gamers who seem to play with friends in general. There's still more players buying into multiplayer games to find folks to play with than to enter the game with a preset group of companions. The percentage of gamers who play with family/friends was just above 40%, actually. EDIT- that also doesn't mean those gamers always play with family/friends. The data made no distinction there.
As MMORPGs continue to ignore what makes the genre unique, and instead attempt to circumvent it, the market share as a whole of the industry will only continue to get smaller.
The one positive thing I'll say for crowdfunding: they seem to be focusing on the genre's strengths, instead of trying to circumvent them.
This is why I’m still playing MMOs of yesteryear. Recently played vanilla WoW on a private server and got a warlock up to level 60 and had an absolute blast doing it! The server I was playing on is releasing a fresh server later this month and I don’t want to level to 60 again so I’m taking a break. Picked up Age of Conan again and have also been having a blast playing it. I’ve had way more fun in these two old games than any new MMO that has come out recently .
The solo play part I don't understand ... will they allow people to play alone with no interference or do they mean a solo play style where you still can have others destroy what you have built and able to interact with other players.
Doesn't sound too shabby, i like a lot of what i just read.
The only question is Bethesda. They have another Fallout game which isn't Fallout, they have a Doom game which isn't actually Doom, etc. There's a big chance this game will be a copy of one of those survival games, only with FO theme and graphics.
Comments
The idea of survival with phasing/instancing/private servers just doesn't work for me. FO76 will, in all likelihood, be more heavily focused on the FPS combat aspects rather than any RPG elements. Conan: Exiles with power armor. Who thought this was a good idea?
I'm beginning to get tired of the whole 'survivor of a nuclear war crawls out of their secluded vault' concept. How about early Martian colonists returning to Earth to try to salvage the situation after a global apocalypse? Your astronaut character would likely start with better tech than anything found under a glowing heap of debris, so there wouldn't necessarily need to be any gear progression.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't mind a shared world game, but Destiny became pretty bland pretty quick for me because, as you say, there was very little focus on the RPG aspects. However, considering Bungie's portfolio, that wasn't entirely unexpected.
Bethesda has a very different portfolio. It will be interesting to see where the majority of the gameplay focus goes: shooter, or RPG.
For example, hub based games could have 100 or more people in a hub, but only allow 30 people in an area instance.
Channels, shards, etc. have become a big part of gameplay, everyone has their own ideas of what an MMO should be, and unfortunately, they are all wrong.
100s of players on screen, very few games do that, and even fewer that do are actually enjoyable.
MMOs don't have specific rules tied to them. There is no clear definition set. a 200 person battle royale game or a 500 person RvR battle, or a 100 person open world FFA, semantics is what it is, and trying to define it is pointless.
Whatever you say it is, someone else will say otherwise, it doesn't change what the game is capable of.
So we get all the toxicity of your average survival title without the chance to opt out of it and just enjoy the game with friends.
No thanks.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? What is the "specific genre" what are the "specific criteria" you are referring to?
Like I said, you could have 200 people standing in a town or city of some games, then go out to the world where they limit players to 50 in an area, but is it an MMO or is it not? You could have a battle royale game where they allow for 300 people in an arena and they can all stand in the same spot, but does that change anything?
It's not "whatever somebody wants it to be" but it isn't clearly defined either. It's not "567 people is the threshold for MMO, if you can't have more than 567 people than it isn't an MMO"
Nothing is clearly defined, so if Fallout 76 ends up with allowing 60, 120, 150 people in an area, maybe it's mm... "MMO lite" but we know it's not just a co-op or Multiplayer game, it's more than that.
Legitimate debates can be had about borderline titles.
My opinion: eventually, the multiplayer part of genre labels will be obsolete. Gamers will need to look into the details of the game to find exactly how and what multiplayer is included.
Don't think we're there yet, but it's coming.
I'm not saying definitively whether FO76 is an MMO yet. I don't know enough about it, but lucky for me, we only have to wait a few months before I can play it. Whether it is or isn't an MMO will be second fiddle to whether it'll be a good game anyways. I guess we can only wait and see.
With matchmaking, toxic general chats the need to have a million players standing together is no longer needed or wanted by the majority of players. We play with our friends and those we enjoy gaming with there is no need to put up with those who just want to be toxic.
*Disclaimer* The use of "most people ""we" or "majority" is based on my opinion . I am not speaking for anyone but myself and how I game today and how games are being created.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
First off missions, and mobs to kill. Yes there can be pvp like GTA5, but nothing like Rust.
As MMORPGs continue to ignore what makes the genre unique, and instead attempt to circumvent it, the market share as a whole of the industry will only continue to get smaller.
The one positive thing I'll say for crowdfunding: they seem to be focusing on the genre's strengths, instead of trying to circumvent them.
Exactly! Think GTA5, not Rust.
The only question is Bethesda. They have another Fallout game which isn't Fallout, they have a Doom game which isn't actually Doom, etc. There's a big chance this game will be a copy of one of those survival games, only with FO theme and graphics.