Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fortnite is Necessary - MMORPG.com

13

Comments

  • AeanderAeander Member LegendaryPosts: 6,805
    edited September 2018
    TimEisen said:

    Scorchien said:

    LMFAO ... Fortnite is not an MMORPG ..................



    At this point it’s more of a mmorpg than that dungeon crawler known as WOW.


    Samhael said:

    This article was... different. There were so many dizzying circles and abrupt changes that I really don't have a clue what the author was trying to say except that he liked Fortnite.



    Thanks for reading. My style is an acquired taste but feel free to ask around about me. I assure you I’m one of us.
    Again, there are implications for shoehorning this into the genre that go beyond a comparison with traditionally labeled MMORPGs.

    Battlefield 5 will even include a 64 player Battle Royale mode.  A difference of 36 players to delineate between multiplayer and massively multiplayer seems...  Insignificant, logically.  Battlefront 2 also had servers running 128 players.  Yet I never see anyone mention that franchise when they try to push a game like Fortnite through the goalposts.

    Maybe that's because the game was released in 2005, before many folks (not you specifically, Tim) decided that MMO meant whatever game they liked and could play online?
    I think, perhaps, that the MMO genre requires criteria other than just "x" amount of players. Now, 500 is an asinine number for reasons previously mentioned, but perhaps just having "100+" or any other vague number is not by itself enough to define something as a MMO, much less a MMORPG. 

    Perhaps object permanence is also a requirement. With a match-based format like Battle Royale or a traditional Battlefront/Call of Duty match, there are a lot of players, but the interactions between those players begin and end within the confines of a single time-limited session, and there is nothing connecting one session or map to another even in terms of a physical portal. 

    Though if object permanence is also a requirement of MMOs, is Crowfall a MMO? Its maps are destroyed/reset every few months to reset the throne war, after all.

    The definition of what does and does not constitute a MMO is tenuous at best, it would seem. 
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 16,119
    Aeander said:
    TimEisen said:

    Scorchien said:

    LMFAO ... Fortnite is not an MMORPG ..................



    At this point it’s more of a mmorpg than that dungeon crawler known as WOW.


    Samhael said:

    This article was... different. There were so many dizzying circles and abrupt changes that I really don't have a clue what the author was trying to say except that he liked Fortnite.



    Thanks for reading. My style is an acquired taste but feel free to ask around about me. I assure you I’m one of us.
    Again, there are implications for shoehorning this into the genre that go beyond a comparison with traditionally labeled MMORPGs.

    Battlefield 5 will even include a 64 player Battle Royale mode.  A difference of 36 players to delineate between multiplayer and massively multiplayer seems...  Insignificant, logically.  Battlefront 2 also had servers running 128 players.  Yet I never see anyone mention that franchise when they try to push a game like Fortnite through the goalposts.

    Maybe that's because the game was released in 2005, before many folks (not you specifically, Tim) decided that MMO meant whatever game they liked and could play online?
    I think, perhaps, that the MMO genre requires criteria other than just "x" amount of players. Now, 500 is an asinine number for reasons previously mentioned, but perhaps just having "100+" or any other vague number is not by itself enough to define something as a MMO, much less a MMORPG. 

    Perhaps object permanence is also a requirement. With a match-based format like Battle Royale or a traditional Battlefront/Call of Duty match, there are a lot of players, but the interactions between those players begin and end within the confines of a single time-limited session, and there is nothing connecting one session or map to another even in terms of a physical portal. 

    Though if object permanence is also a requirement of MMOs, is Crowfall a MMO? Its maps are destroyed/reset every few months to reset the throne war, after all.

    The definition of what does and does not constitute a MMO is tenuous at best, it would seem. 
    It's actually pretty easy to know when you're playing one and when you're not. A lot of these exaggerated inclusion into the MMO, and especially MMORPG categories are really pretty contrived and done for ulterior (clicks, marketing, etc.) motives.

    A large number of players is a factor but more importantly where that large number can be seen and interacted with is: real MMOs have the potential for those large numbers to congregate anywhere in the world and fake MMOs typically do it only in instanced lobbies or other transient game play instances.

    Persistence of the world is another one and we all know what this means without getting into navel gazing abut trees falling in the forest and no one hearing.

    MMOs have for many years indulged in adding non-MMO features like temporary PvE and PvP instances. WOW did it to a much larger extent than others but it has been widely copied.

    But this does not mean that games that use those systems of temporary instances that MMOs also use are MMOs since they are in fact copying the non-MMO part of those MMOs.

    So... sorry @TimEisen, I have a lot of respect for your opinions (and also enjoy your gonzo writing style, BTW) but on the topic of Fortnite being more deserving of the MMORPG designation than WOW, you couldn't be more wrong if you were the mayor of Wrongville, 


    KyleranScorchienMadFrenchie
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited September 2018
    Aeander said:
    TimEisen said:

    Scorchien said:

    LMFAO ... Fortnite is not an MMORPG ..................



    At this point it’s more of a mmorpg than that dungeon crawler known as WOW.


    Samhael said:

    This article was... different. There were so many dizzying circles and abrupt changes that I really don't have a clue what the author was trying to say except that he liked Fortnite.



    Thanks for reading. My style is an acquired taste but feel free to ask around about me. I assure you I’m one of us.
    Again, there are implications for shoehorning this into the genre that go beyond a comparison with traditionally labeled MMORPGs.

    Battlefield 5 will even include a 64 player Battle Royale mode.  A difference of 36 players to delineate between multiplayer and massively multiplayer seems...  Insignificant, logically.  Battlefront 2 also had servers running 128 players.  Yet I never see anyone mention that franchise when they try to push a game like Fortnite through the goalposts.

    Maybe that's because the game was released in 2005, before many folks (not you specifically, Tim) decided that MMO meant whatever game they liked and could play online?
    I think, perhaps, that the MMO genre requires criteria other than just "x" amount of players. Now, 500 is an asinine number for reasons previously mentioned, but perhaps just having "100+" or any other vague number is not by itself enough to define something as a MMO, much less a MMORPG. 

    Perhaps object permanence is also a requirement. With a match-based format like Battle Royale or a traditional Battlefront/Call of Duty match, there are a lot of players, but the interactions between those players begin and end within the confines of a single time-limited session, and there is nothing connecting one session or map to another even in terms of a physical portal. 

    Though if object permanence is also a requirement of MMOs, is Crowfall a MMO? Its maps are destroyed/reset every few months to reset the throne war, after all.

    The definition of what does and does not constitute a MMO is tenuous at best, it would seem. 
    In the most basic terms, it really does come down to a multiplayer number.  Multiplayer necessitates nothing other than multiple players.  Technology certainly is blurring the line.  I can accept that, but not when we cherry-pick FOTM titles to make the case to include them while ignoring others simply because they aren't insanely popular or aren't a favorite of MMORPG gamers (no offense Tim).
    Kyleran

    image
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,942
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    TorvalSlapshot1188PhryGobstopper3D

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,457
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Agreed. Even Garriott (which people love to refer to since he coined the catchphrase) said 500+ per server.

    RPG has nothing to do with MMO other than you can have RPGs with massive player concurrency.

    For me, MMO speaks of player concurrency and a technological implementation. The last three refer to genre specifics. RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
    blueturtle13Kyleran
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 38,504
    Torval said:
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Agreed. Even Garriott (which people love to refer to since he coined the catchphrase) said 500+ per server.

    RPG has nothing to do with MMO other than you can have RPGs with massive player concurrency.

    For me, MMO speaks of player concurrency and a technological implementation. The last three refer to genre specifics. RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
    People forget, (even the current staff) here but when this site was more focused on MMORPGs they had a published definition which supported RG's 500 per server and a requirement of persistence in order to be listed here.

    It was good for its time and well fit the published games of the era.

    Although changes in design and technology blur lines these days it is still a reasonably good definition which there is no real reason to change,  except of course by those with a marketing agenda.

    It's not like we don't have plenty of good monikers for other sub genres, ARPG, CORPG, MOBA, etc.

    So if Fortnite supports online instances of 500 plus, it can be properly called a MMO, even if not persistent.

    Otherwise CORPG or just OMPG would be more fitting. 



    Torvalblueturtle13

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing ESO - Blackwood at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,115
    edited September 2018
    Torval said:
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Agreed. Even Garriott (which people love to refer to since he coined the catchphrase) said 500+ per server.

    RPG has nothing to do with MMO other than you can have RPGs with massive player concurrency.

    For me, MMO speaks of player concurrency and a technological implementation. The last three refer to genre specifics. RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
    Well when Garriot said it he was asked about UO(and describe it) and the number of players per server was then and is now 5k ..

        When asked to describe UO ... He described it as A persistent world where thousands of players can play together ..To have a home and live in a persistent virtual world together ...
    Post edited by Scorchien on
    Kyleran
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Multiplayer Online and Massively Multiplayer Online are 2 different things too, guess which one has 100's of players rather than 10's or more embarassingly for some games that are somehow claiming to be MMO's, 12. Whether or not a game is an RPG or a FPS is pretty much irrelevant as being an MMO is not genre dependant, its entirely based on the numbers, and unless your talking 100's of players then its not even an option. The problem these days is that people seem to think that facts are less important than feels, or that feels somehow override facts, which they don't, the whole multiplayer vs massively multiplayer argument is stupid, Witcher 3 isn't a worse game because its not an MMO, so why should people be so defensive about whatever game they are a fan of if its not also an MMO, it has no bearing on whether a game is good or not after all. :/
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,942
    Phry said:
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Multiplayer Online and Massively Multiplayer Online are 2 different things too, guess which one has 100's of players rather than 10's or more embarassingly for some games that are somehow claiming to be MMO's, 12. Whether or not a game is an RPG or a FPS is pretty much irrelevant as being an MMO is not genre dependant, its entirely based on the numbers, and unless your talking 100's of players then its not even an option. The problem these days is that people seem to think that facts are less important than feels, or that feels somehow override facts, which they don't, the whole multiplayer vs massively multiplayer argument is stupid, Witcher 3 isn't a worse game because its not an MMO, so why should people be so defensive about whatever game they are a fan of if its not also an MMO, it has no bearing on whether a game is good or not after all. :/
    Though I do agree with you (as I usually do) 
    there is a segment of the gaming population that looks at tens of people online as an mmo. 
    Digital portals like Steam have contributed to this confusion. Go to Steam and put in massively multiplayer as a tag and see what comes up. Sure ESO is on there but you also have Battlerite Royale to The Division to Flight Simulator they hold the 
    ‘user’ tag as massively multiplayer. I think the gaming general public took the mmo term and ran with it. Regardless of what us veteran mmorpg players think I don’t believe we are getting that term back. 
    At least with the term mmorpg it is usually understood what kind of game it is meant to portray. With the term MMO? I have no idea anymore. 
    MadFrenchieTorvalPhryGobstopper3D

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 38,504
    Scorchien said:
    Torval said:
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Agreed. Even Garriott (which people love to refer to since he coined the catchphrase) said 500+ per server.

    RPG has nothing to do with MMO other than you can have RPGs with massive player concurrency.

    For me, MMO speaks of player concurrency and a technological implementation. The last three refer to genre specifics. RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
    Well when Garriot said it he was asked about UO(and describe it) and the number of players per server was then and is now 5k ..

        When asked to describe UO ... He described it as A persistent world where thousands of players can play together ..To have a home and live in a persistent virtual world together ...
    So, at 500 we are being conservative....makes sense, when I first started playing MMORPGs like DAOC and Lineage 1 they supported several thousand concurrent players online. (Not in one map or zone of course)

    Can't see any reason to call games well under 500 concurrent players MMOs....nor does it apply to Fortnite I don't think.  (Yet)
    ScorchienPhry

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing ESO - Blackwood at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 566
    Couldn't get into pubg, thought it was ok but wasn't my type of game. Fortnite was exactly the same game to the t with cartoon graphics. So obviously couldn't hold my attention. I will applaud them for doing f2p right. Its at least giving the kids something to play and theres really nothing "wrong" with the game.

  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,115
    Kyleran said:
    Scorchien said:
    Torval said:
    I think it is fine to call it an mmo
    I don’t think it is ok to call it an mmorpg

    two different things. 
    Agreed. Even Garriott (which people love to refer to since he coined the catchphrase) said 500+ per server.

    RPG has nothing to do with MMO other than you can have RPGs with massive player concurrency.

    For me, MMO speaks of player concurrency and a technological implementation. The last three refer to genre specifics. RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
    Well when Garriot said it he was asked about UO(and describe it) and the number of players per server was then and is now 5k ..

        When asked to describe UO ... He described it as A persistent world where thousands of players can play together ..To have a home and live in a persistent virtual world together ...
    So, at 500 we are being conservative....makes sense, when I first started playing MMORPGs like DAOC and Lineage 1 they supported several thousand concurrent players online. (Not in one map or zone of course)

    Can't see any reason to call games well under 500 concurrent players MMOs....nor does it apply to Fortnite I don't think.  (Yet)
    Yes , when UO was built they aimed for 1 million players and a 100k concurrent player base and launched with i think it was 35 servers that could hold 5k concurrent each if needed, They knowingly aimed highin attempt to circumvent problems .. Really was some decent foresight at the time , And altho early on servers had some troubles they were entering realms noone had at that point , in hindsight now it was a great effort going in basically blind
  • TierlessTierless ColumnistMember EpicPosts: 3,383
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    MadFrenchieTorval
    But not all men seek rest and peace; some are born with the spirit of the storm in their blood, restless harbingers, knowing no other path.
  • DavodtheTuttDavodtheTutt Member UncommonPosts: 415
    Fortnite is a FPS and of course PvP, and a Battle Royale in which only 1 person survives -- all things which made me not interested. But it was F2P so I thought I'd give it a try. Been having fun! Why? Because I play it my way, and I'm surprised at how well it's been working.

    What's my way? Non-combatively! I haven't "killed" anybody! I did try a few times in self-defence, but now I just run around looking for puzzle pieces in basements or whatever non-combat goals there are, or fun things to do like going through flaming hoops, or skeet shooting. Love the skydiving and parachuting from the bus, aiming for an interesting landing spot. I haven't even bothered with the building much. From my spectating I think the pros have either incredible reflexes or some sort of macros or something automating the building. I've gotten a real kick out of outlasting the vast majority of other players simply by avoiding everyone for as long as possible!

    I'd just like to know, has anyone ever played a game where you can just toss out everything it's supposed to be all about and still have fun AND finish in the top 25 or 12 out of so manny? Oh yes, and I haven't spent a cent on it. Whatever its problems may be, I have nothing to complain about!
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 38,504
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    Bringing WOW into the conversation probably got all of us lost in the weeds. Doesn’t really matter if Fortnite is a MMO or not, you enjoyed playing it for it’s MMO-like features which are not specific to any particular sub-genre.

    I don’t understand the appeal of Fortnite, but in all fairness I rarely comprehend or agree with what is popular with the majority. 




    MadFrenchieScot

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing ESO - Blackwood at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • cesmode8cesmode8 Member UncommonPosts: 431
    edited September 2018

    sschrupp said:













    Nothing wrong with Fortnight. Someone just managed to teach an old dog (First Person Shooters) a new trick. Would I say the game is necessary? I'd say anything that moves the gaming genre forward is necessary. Now what isn't needed? Tons of asshole copy cat companies flooding the market their own half assed knockoffs.




    Well technically Fortnite is the knockoff. 




    Oh they certainly copied Pub G for the battle royale idea, but adding building to the mix makes its quite a bit of a different experience. They actually had an idea how to improve the genre, and did so. And I think that's the reason its kicking Pub G's ass.






    Technically it's a bit opposite in what they did. They took Fortnite (the PvE version that nobody seems to know exists), which is a fun Co-Op game that has building and stuff, and then a couple of the devs said "Hey, what if we added a little battle royale mode just for funsies?". Boom, co-op Fortnite was buried in the sock drawer. The *effect* was an improvement, or addition, to the genre like you say, but their *intent* was to add something to the original Co-Op PvE game as a side project.



    Luckily their little side project ended up bringing them in a TON of extra cash and they haven't stopped developing the PvE Fortnite... yet...



    Totally agree. I had 200+ hrs in PVE fortnite (Save the world). Played for a few months. It had huge potential. Loved it. The only way to play it at the time was buying the founders pack, 50 dollars. I did.

    One day, they released BR. No explanation, warning, announcement. Just did. Us paying customers sat in the login queue on day one with the free playing leeches. I played the BR before any of the big name streamers including Ninja, Lupo, Tim, etc.

    It gained steam quick. And I soon saw that Epic wasn't fixing PVE or adding anything new. Hell, the 3rd zone was empty of the entire quest line. They left it un finished. I had submitted PAGES of feedback to the devs as requested thinking it would get done at some point. Never happened. I saw frequent updates to BR, none to PVE.

    I submitted a refund request, with 200+ hrs played after a few months. They granted my refund request without blinking an eye. Why? Because they were rolling in cash from BR, so what if they lost one PVE player. They knew where their cash cow was and I wasn't a part of it.

    I've never felt so diminished to nothing and cheated from a developer before. Epic is as greedy as they come and used the most shady business tactics to tap into a cash vein.

    I'll never purchase one of their products again. Total joke of a company that got completely lucky with an idea on the backs of paying customers such as myself. Dr Disrespect trashes the game and the developer daily and righfully so.

    The game itself lends to a playstyle where your skill as a shooter doesn't matter because Bloom exists to artificially shrink the skill gap between someone that can shoot and someone that can not. The building is the only skill required. Thats lame, and its not a Battle Royale to me. Its an arcade game.

    I can't wait to see Blackops 4/ Blackout take a of big streamers from fortnite.
    PhryGobstopper3D
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited September 2018
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    It would be nice to return to a time in WoW where there isn't so much "queue, wait for pop" content.

    They tried to bring OWPvP back with War Mode, but it's 2018; without an overarching objective to murdering other folks while you're out questing, it won't attract a lot of participants.  Nobody wins OWPvP because all it is is a deathmatch with no time or kill limit.  I wish they had went further and added PvP objectives in the open world for those with War Mode on.  Holding the objectives could provide a faction wide buff of some sort.

    World Quests brought some focus back on the open world, but the new expansion added two new content systems that are completely queue and wait: Warfronts and Expeditions.  Neither has received an overwhelmingly positive reaction from players.

    image
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 16,069
    Kyleran said:
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    Bringing WOW into the conversation probably got all of us lost in the weeds. Doesn’t really matter if Fortnite is a MMO or not, you enjoyed playing it for it’s MMO-like features which are not specific to any particular sub-genre.

    I don’t understand the appeal of Fortnite, but in all fairness I rarely comprehend or agree with what is popular with the majority. 
    I presume Tim means at top level WoW is a dungeon finder, you still have to get to top level in open world?

    For me you can't ignore the effect Fortnite is and will have on the gaming industry, but for me it is not a good one. Just take the two things I think we can applaud Fortnite for, building and cosmetics only cash shop. Does any of us here think that will be Fortnites legacy, more games with building and cosmetic revenue only F2P games? I think not.
    KyleranRawiz
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 38,504
    Scot said:
    Kyleran said:
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    Bringing WOW into the conversation probably got all of us lost in the weeds. Doesn’t really matter if Fortnite is a MMO or not, you enjoyed playing it for it’s MMO-like features which are not specific to any particular sub-genre.

    I don’t understand the appeal of Fortnite, but in all fairness I rarely comprehend or agree with what is popular with the majority. 
    I presume Tim means at top level WoW is a dungeon finder, you still have to get to top level in open world?

    For me you can't ignore the effect Fortnite is and will have on the gaming industry, but for me it is not a good one. Just take the two things I think we can applaud Fortnite for, building and cosmetics only cash shop. Does any of us here think that will be Fortnites legacy, more games with building and cosmetic revenue only F2P games? I think not.
    Fortnite isn't the first game with building or cosmetic only revenue models, except perhaps in the BR sub genre which won't affect me or the games I'm following.

    What is concerning is the very real possibility of games like Ashes, CU, or Crowfall turning their focus on including BR modes in their games.

    Ashes is already doing so, MJ said he would like to but won't until he at least delivers the core game first. 
    Scot

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing ESO - Blackwood at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • RawizRawiz Member UncommonPosts: 584
    BR games are already dying out. It's a nice kids game for them to use their parents credit card to buy cosmetic crap.
  • RawizRawiz Member UncommonPosts: 584
    edited October 2018
    Scot said:
    Kyleran said:
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    Bringing WOW into the conversation probably got all of us lost in the weeds. Doesn’t really matter if Fortnite is a MMO or not, you enjoyed playing it for it’s MMO-like features which are not specific to any particular sub-genre.

    I don’t understand the appeal of Fortnite, but in all fairness I rarely comprehend or agree with what is popular with the majority. 
    I presume Tim means at top level WoW is a dungeon finder, you still have to get to top level in open world?

    For me you can't ignore the effect Fortnite is and will have on the gaming industry, but for me it is not a good one. Just take the two things I think we can applaud Fortnite for, building and cosmetics only cash shop. Does any of us here think that will be Fortnites legacy, more games with building and cosmetic revenue only F2P games? I think not.
    ???? At top level WoW is definitely NOT a dungeon finder. It actually requires a lot of planning, executing said plans and a lot of people doing them at the same time or everyone dies.

    Comparing some faceroll LOOKING FOR RAID content to mythic raids and such is fucking pathetic and shows how out of touch you and Tim are.

    Of course, when compared to fortnite, lfr is exactly what you want to use. People have no clue wtf they're doing and it doesn't ever matter unlike high end WoW.
  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor Member RarePosts: 1,097

    Wizardry said:

    FREE ? lol

    So if you want to have a very small amount of cosmetics in a game ,you have to pay extra ...haha,imagine if that was the case in Wow or any other mmorpg.Let's monetize EVERYTHING,except the login screen...sigh,so many blind people.



    While I don't give Fortnite credit for much, I can say they they have a very reasonable monetization option. If you buy the Battle Pass once, just once, and actually play, you can actually get a good set of cosmetics, AND get enough v-bucks to buy the next season pass. So 10 bucks forever for regular bonuses. Not bad as far as those things go. But luckily for Epic people like my son, who got his first part time job, is willing to spend way to much of his money for Skins (questionable value), and gliders (no value for something no-one else really cares about and are only visible for seconds a match), and even pick axes and backpacks.

    I don't give Frotnite Credit for anything else. They fluked out with the combination of building and PvP Third Person Shooter (not FPS). The original game would have been more popular. Their system seems jello solid . . . they haven't really added anything to the game that I wouldn't' expect from a small indie company who can barely pay their bills.

    I'm dissapointed that no-one else has tried to make a better BR game. I mean a real effort. It's such a simple type of game that they can add it on to any other shooter/fighter, which is happening, but nothing impressive or interesting that I'm aware of.
    Phry
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 16,069
    Rawiz said:
    Scot said:
    Kyleran said:
    TimEisen said:
    Let’s get one thing straight here and now, I appreciate the hell out of you guys and respect your post history’s. No need to apologize but doing so speaks to the caliber of forum fighters you are. As far as If FN is a mmorpg, that might be its own column. There’s a lot to unpack there.

    For WOW, it was a mmorpg but it’s been a dungeon crawler for years. I dont know what it’s like now but last time I checked the open world devolved into a glorified lobby and you used that lobby to bring up a dungeon finder then loaded out. It’s more Diablo than mmorpg now. Given it’s the best dungeon crawler ever made, Ive had trouble calling it a mmorpg since the first expansion killed the open world.
    Bringing WOW into the conversation probably got all of us lost in the weeds. Doesn’t really matter if Fortnite is a MMO or not, you enjoyed playing it for it’s MMO-like features which are not specific to any particular sub-genre.

    I don’t understand the appeal of Fortnite, but in all fairness I rarely comprehend or agree with what is popular with the majority. 
    I presume Tim means at top level WoW is a dungeon finder, you still have to get to top level in open world?

    For me you can't ignore the effect Fortnite is and will have on the gaming industry, but for me it is not a good one. Just take the two things I think we can applaud Fortnite for, building and cosmetics only cash shop. Does any of us here think that will be Fortnites legacy, more games with building and cosmetic revenue only F2P games? I think not.
    ???? At top level WoW is definitely NOT a dungeon finder. It actually requires a lot of planning, executing said plans and a lot of people doing them at the same time or everyone dies.

    Comparing some faceroll LOOKING FOR RAID content to mythic raids and such is fucking pathetic and shows how out of touch you and Tim are.

    Of course, when compared to fortnite, lfr is exactly what you want to use. People have no clue wtf they're doing and it doesn't ever matter unlike high end WoW.
    Thank you for your calm contribution, you may not have noticed but I was asking a question about WoW, not making a statement. I cannot speak for others but what I think is being got at here is there is nothing to do other than raids. As a big fan of raids myself I do not see that as a huge issue, but clearly it does change the gameplay from one that feels open world to rather closed. As to my own preference it would be for raids and regional pvp to stand side by side as end game content in any MMO.
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Even trying to compare this game to any MMO is ridiculous!  Come on Tim, it is ok to be controversial, but when you attempt to make the game what it isn't just won't fly.  

    It is a boring FPS that gets very old fast.  
  • Lotuss5Lotuss5 Member CommonPosts: 6
    Popular games will always be necessary until they stop being them and then nobody talks about them xD
Sign In or Register to comment.