Massively - A huge game world that has Multiplayer options that you can play with a massive amount of people online. Nowhere in the acronym MMO does it say you have to play all together at the same time or on the same screen. Just twisting a couple words and I gave it a totally different meaning. I can go on all day.
I'm sure you're the one that just don't get it.
Actually, that's what the word "multiplayer" means.
A game is only considered multiplayer when 2+ players are able to interact within the same virtual environment. The multiplayer part is literally all about how many people are within the same environment.
That is how player caps are calculated - Mario Kart 8 is 12player, because a maximum of 12 players can be within the same virtual environment to play together. The Division 2 is 12 player, because a maximum of 12 people can exist within the same virtual environment. SWTOR has a player cap of 75, because a maximum of 75 people can exist within the same virtual environment.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Now, what you set you minimum number as is indeed subjective. "Massively" is a comparative word, so you have to compare the game to all other multiplayer online games. What is the average, and what is the usual spread? Well, the usual spread is 2-128, the average is somewhere around 23 based on my calculations. So, what number is "massively" bigger than 128?
I personally use 500 as my minimum. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster chose 250 as their number 20 years ago, but I increased it as the average multiplayer numbers have increased. But, feel free to choose your own number, as long as you think it is massively bigger than 128.
But if the game's player cap is less than 128, then it is just regular multiplayer, nothing massively multiplayer about it.
I am so happy that people get it. Its fun to see you and others try to educate someone who clearly has a weak grasp of the english language (though they write with a pompous attitude which isn't backed up by knowledge). I too set my minimum as 500 people. Its still WAY more than the average multiplayer game.
Where I think things get wishy-washy is when you change genres. Maybe some games such as an MMORTS don't require 500 to be massive since even 16 is a lot of people. Know what I mean? But thats a whole other topic.
TLDR version: you are just wrong about this Sovarth, no matter how many references you can point to of it being used incorrectly, especially since the "change" in meaning is by no means universally accepted.
Well, only time will tell if "I'm wrong."
What's probably going to happen is that the term will change a lot and very few people will reference the original "mmorpg" very sparingly and then a small group of people who can't let go will rant and rave.
But I don't have to prove anything all I have to do, like you, is wait.
All I'm saying is that history has probably already shown us what's going to happen.
Again, your weak grasp of the english language is showing. While english is easily bastardized because we don't have an official guiding council or whatever for it, it does not mean that an initialism with clearly defined words will start to mean something else. RPG for instance is pretty broad and a lot of things can be argued about it. MMO is not. Its a description which again is only subjective if you want to state the exact number of players in game. It literally only describes a game that puts a massive quantity of players together in one shared reality online. There is nothing to change. You cannot make those words mean anything other than what they already mean. To make any component of MMO mean something else would require drastic changes to the entire language and the way it is structured. Are you going to make "Massively" a different type of word? No longer an adverb? No. You are not. Again, thats the way the language works. Are you going to make multiplayer mean something besides multiple players? Nope. Gonna make online mean something other than online? Nope.
Its not time that will tell you that you are wrong, its everyone who knows how english works that will.
You could easily google each word and learn how things like adverbs and adjectives work. You have the internet at your fingertips. Educate yourself. If you like games that aren't MMO but require the MMO initialism to feel like the game is worth playing despite the game not having any MMO well... you've got weird issues man. Cause I can play any game and do not need to pretend a 16 player game is an MMO.
Using your logic we can make RPG = RTS. We can make LOL stand for Single player... words are meaningless!
Massively - A huge game world that has Multiplayer options that you can play with a massive amount of people online. Nowhere in the acronym MMO does it say you have to play all together at the same time or on the same screen. Just twisting a couple words and I gave it a totally different meaning. I can go on all day.
I'm sure you're the one that just don't get it.
Actually, that's what the word "multiplayer" means.
A game is only considered multiplayer when 2+ players are able to interact within the same virtual environment. The multiplayer part is literally all about how many people are within the same environment.
That is how player caps are calculated - Mario Kart 8 is 12player, because a maximum of 12 players can be within the same virtual environment to play together. The Division 2 is 12 player, because a maximum of 12 people can exist within the same virtual environment. SWTOR has a player cap of 75, because a maximum of 75 people can exist within the same virtual environment.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Now, what you set you minimum number as is indeed subjective. "Massively" is a comparative word, so you have to compare the game to all other multiplayer online games. What is the average, and what is the usual spread? Well, the usual spread is 2-128, the average is somewhere around 23 based on my calculations. So, what number is "massively" bigger than 128?
I personally use 500 as my minimum. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster chose 250 as their number 20 years ago, but I increased it as the average multiplayer numbers have increased. But, feel free to choose your own number, as long as you think it is massively bigger than 128.
But if the game's player cap is less than 128, then it is just regular multiplayer, nothing massively multiplayer about it.
I am so happy that people get it. Its fun to see you and others try to educate someone who clearly has a weak grasp of the english language (though they write with a pompous attitude which isn't backed up by knowledge). I too set my minimum as 500 people. Its still WAY more than the average multiplayer game.
Where I think things get wishy-washy is when you change genres. Maybe some games such as an MMORTS don't require 500 to be massive since even 16 is a lot of people. Know what I mean? But thats a whole other topic.
Man you must be a joy to be around.
Your second attempt at trolling me isn't going very well. But I do get a laugh out of it! Not sure why you guys are so passionate about expressing how you can't understand what MMO means.
Massively - A huge game world that has Multiplayer options that you can play with a massive amount of people online. Nowhere in the acronym MMO does it say you have to play all together at the same time or on the same screen. Just twisting a couple words and I gave it a totally different meaning. I can go on all day.
I'm sure you're the one that just don't get it.
Actually, that's what the word "multiplayer" means.
A game is only considered multiplayer when 2+ players are able to interact within the same virtual environment. The multiplayer part is literally all about how many people are within the same environment.
That is how player caps are calculated - Mario Kart 8 is 12player, because a maximum of 12 players can be within the same virtual environment to play together. The Division 2 is 12 player, because a maximum of 12 people can exist within the same virtual environment. SWTOR has a player cap of 75, because a maximum of 75 people can exist within the same virtual environment.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Now, what you set you minimum number as is indeed subjective. "Massively" is a comparative word, so you have to compare the game to all other multiplayer online games. What is the average, and what is the usual spread? Well, the usual spread is 2-128, the average is somewhere around 23 based on my calculations. So, what number is "massively" bigger than 128?
I personally use 500 as my minimum. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster chose 250 as their number 20 years ago, but I increased it as the average multiplayer numbers have increased. But, feel free to choose your own number, as long as you think it is massively bigger than 128.
But if the game's player cap is less than 128, then it is just regular multiplayer, nothing massively multiplayer about it.
I am so happy that people get it. Its fun to see you and others try to educate someone who clearly has a weak grasp of the english language (though they write with a pompous attitude which isn't backed up by knowledge). I too set my minimum as 500 people. Its still WAY more than the average multiplayer game.
Where I think things get wishy-washy is when you change genres. Maybe some games such as an MMORTS don't require 500 to be massive since even 16 is a lot of people. Know what I mean? But thats a whole other topic.
Man you must be a joy to be around.
Your second attempt at trolling me isn't going very well. But I do get a laugh out of it! Not sure why you guys are so passionate about expressing how you can't understand what MMO means.
LOL just to piss you off? That's a great reason for me.
Massively - A huge game world that has Multiplayer options that you can play with a massive amount of people online. Nowhere in the acronym MMO does it say you have to play all together at the same time or on the same screen. Just twisting a couple words and I gave it a totally different meaning. I can go on all day.
I'm sure you're the one that just don't get it.
Actually, that's what the word "multiplayer" means.
A game is only considered multiplayer when 2+ players are able to interact within the same virtual environment. The multiplayer part is literally all about how many people are within the same environment.
That is how player caps are calculated - Mario Kart 8 is 12player, because a maximum of 12 players can be within the same virtual environment to play together. The Division 2 is 12 player, because a maximum of 12 people can exist within the same virtual environment. SWTOR has a player cap of 75, because a maximum of 75 people can exist within the same virtual environment.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Now, what you set you minimum number as is indeed subjective. "Massively" is a comparative word, so you have to compare the game to all other multiplayer online games. What is the average, and what is the usual spread? Well, the usual spread is 2-128, the average is somewhere around 23 based on my calculations. So, what number is "massively" bigger than 128?
I personally use 500 as my minimum. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster chose 250 as their number 20 years ago, but I increased it as the average multiplayer numbers have increased. But, feel free to choose your own number, as long as you think it is massively bigger than 128.
But if the game's player cap is less than 128, then it is just regular multiplayer, nothing massively multiplayer about it.
I am so happy that people get it. Its fun to see you and others try to educate someone who clearly has a weak grasp of the english language (though they write with a pompous attitude which isn't backed up by knowledge). I too set my minimum as 500 people. Its still WAY more than the average multiplayer game.
Where I think things get wishy-washy is when you change genres. Maybe some games such as an MMORTS don't require 500 to be massive since even 16 is a lot of people. Know what I mean? But thats a whole other topic.
Man you must be a joy to be around.
Your second attempt at trolling me isn't going very well. But I do get a laugh out of it! Not sure why you guys are so passionate about expressing how you can't understand what MMO means.
LOL just to piss you off? That's a great reason for me.
Or maybe he is really bad at explaining what an MMORPG is to people that have been playing them for decades?
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Its fun to see you and others try to educate someone who clearly has a weak grasp of the english language (though they write with a pompous attitude which isn't backed up by knowledge).
When used as a proper noun, English is capitalized. I'm just saying.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
the "16 player game" is not in and of itself "massive." the Fact that thousands upon thousands interface with with the game concurrently is now "Massive."
Is there a massive number of people at the Starbucks near my house? No. Is there a massive number of people at all the Starbucks in the world combined? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that when I am at Starbucks, I am not amongst a massive number of people.
Not really a great example. Your example would be more pertinent to a single player game. Thousands and thousands of people playing but you don't interact with them.
What developers and industry people seem to be leaning toward for "massive or massivley or whatever" is a large amount of people signing into the game where you have the chance to play with any one of those thousands of people.
People don't like it? Great. But developers, media, producers keep saying it. No skin off my nose, history has already shown us that words change, even drastically, from what they started off representing. Here, this might help
When it comes to lobby games, I ask if the lobby is "the game", because the lobby is where the "massively multiplayer" aspect is.
And yes, "dike" now has another meaning besides its original, but it still means a wall of earth to hold back water. Gay stillmeanshappy. Black still describes a color. Faggot still is an amount of cut wood, or a cigarette in England.
Now, 20 years ago, 8MB of RAM was a "massive" amount along with 100MB hard drives. Today, not so much. So, in relation, the descriptor can change over time. 256 seemed to be any upper limit, thanks to the binary language. But it has gone from singles to trillions.
The kicker is, many League of Legends matches have more players "interacting" with each other than many MMO games
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Massively - A huge game world that has Multiplayer options that you can play with a massive amount of people online. Nowhere in the acronym MMO does it say you have to play all together at the same time or on the same screen. Just twisting a couple words and I gave it a totally different meaning. I can go on all day.
I'm sure you're the one that just don't get it.
Actually, that's what the word "multiplayer" means.
A game is only considered multiplayer when 2+ players are able to interact within the same virtual environment. The multiplayer part is literally all about how many people are within the same environment.
That is how player caps are calculated - Mario Kart 8 is 12player, because a maximum of 12 players can be within the same virtual environment to play together. The Division 2 is 12 player, because a maximum of 12 people can exist within the same virtual environment. SWTOR has a player cap of 75, because a maximum of 75 people can exist within the same virtual environment.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Now, what you set you minimum number as is indeed subjective. "Massively" is a comparative word, so you have to compare the game to all other multiplayer online games. What is the average, and what is the usual spread? Well, the usual spread is 2-128, the average is somewhere around 23 based on my calculations. So, what number is "massively" bigger than 128?
I personally use 500 as my minimum. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster chose 250 as their number 20 years ago, but I increased it as the average multiplayer numbers have increased. But, feel free to choose your own number, as long as you think it is massively bigger than 128.
But if the game's player cap is less than 128, then it is just regular multiplayer, nothing massively multiplayer about it.
Point of order, some old timers may recall the day when MMORPG used to post standards for what constitutes a MMORPG therefore qualifying a game to be included on "the list."
One criteria was at least 500 players which could interact in a single server or world.
They have long since sold out...err backed off on this position to maintain some sort of relevance, but I still hold true to their original figure.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
TLDR version: you are just wrong about this Sovarth, no matter how many references you can point to of it being used incorrectly, especially since the "change" in meaning is by no means universally accepted.
Well, only time will tell if "I'm wrong."
What's probably going to happen is that the term will change a lot and very few people will reference the original "mmorpg" very sparingly and then a small group of people who can't let go will rant and rave.
But I don't have to prove anything all I have to do, like you, is wait.
All I'm saying is that history has probably already shown us what's going to happen.
Oh I know you are right in this regards, the meanings of acronyms constantly change which I understand but words themselves or language rules not so much.
But hey, most here will long out live me so they'll get the final say.
Hmm, maybe I'll have the definition of MMO engraved on my tombstone....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
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
Ahh this old argument.. You all are crazy, I still remember playing my first fps and people trying to correct me but ill tell you, cant top super Mario bros, best fps ever!
This is the highlight of your time with us after all, when they ask you what experience you have with fractious nature of gaming communities you can say "I handled MMORPG posters banging on about what a MMORPG meant". Beat that.
So you have shown you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You didn't even read the link I provided where it is spelt out very clear from the guy who actually coined the descriptor.
First off, its not "Massive", its "Massively". So you're wrong already. Massively is used as its describing the multiple portion of multiplayer. You should look up the definition of "Massively" in particular. Its what we call an adverb. An adverb is a word that expresses a relation of the adjective, verb or other adverb. So basically expressing timing, speed, quantity. Massively is an adverb and stands for that purpose. So yeah, get the first word right if you want to properly discuss what an MMO means. You have no ground to stand on if you don't even know the first fucking word lol. You write in such a pompous manner that I really enjoy educating you on how english works.
Youre trying to imply that MMO (the initialism) stands for something other than MMO. It does not. So you are objectively wrong. Again, you need to learn the first word before we can even continue discussing this.
As per the article you didn't read:
"We felt that the term "Massively" was the key. So when people debate the applications of the term MMO to a variety of game types, I still believe that is the real differentiator. Persistence in your characters presence and growth was also clearly a part of our intention with the full "MMORPG"."
So what kind of mental gymnastics are you going to trying and pull now to make MMO stand for anything but Massively Multiplayer Online? Just going to dig in your heels and be ignorant to actually educating yourself? That's my vote. Because you ignorant types have been doing it for years.
Take an english clash and stop writing so cliche in an vain attempt to come off intelligent. Cause it doesn't work if you don't even know the basics of what you are discussing.
I suppose I must reply to your missive about massive, but
time it short and so is the reply. I noticed you tend to drop the RPG which I
think is rather important but did not call you out on that until you decided
Massively rather than Massive was so important. So your definition is wrong
right there, MMORPG's are all about the RPG and the fact it gets dropped shows
you those games may well not be MMORPG's at all. But I except it has come into common usage as "MMO", what I object to is when posters
conveniently use this to forget these are meant to be RPG's online.
Your use of “MMO” is very literal, ten thousand players in
room is not a MMO or a MMORPG for that matter. Nor is 16 players in 625 rooms.
“Take an english clash and stop writing so cliche in an vain
attempt to come off intelligent.”
- The word English is always spelt with a capital “E” and it
is “class” not “clash”, some would say that cliché should have an accented “e”
but I am being generous and will let you off there, I was rather taking liberties
with that hyphen myself. If you need a reference to a night school for some remedial
English I can point you in the right direction.
You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing so I leave
it there, carry on if you wish. My last advice is these are only games, don’t
let them boil your blood.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Where does that place Everquest ? You couldn't interact a lot of times without loading since the game was divided into zones. Some zones beyond a 100 was already pushing it since it would lag the game big time.
In spite of being divided by zones and being unable to interact without zoning several times into various different zones, no one ever argued Everquest was not an MMORPG
You also spoke about the minimum number from 500 which was your preference to 250 of Garriott and Koster and finally the 128 figure. Again I bring up the Everquest example but will add in the raids and dungeons in WoW. If you say that there must be a possibility of interacting with at least 128 people , must it exist in all parts of the game. For instance in WoW Dungeons you can only interact with 5 people or up 40 in a raid. That is not Massively by any stretch.
If you say that is allowed as while you are searching for members you are interacting with the rest of the population on the server, then why don't hubs work? Why can't a game have a hub where up to 250 people or 128 come together and go off to do stuff in dungeons or zones with limited numbers?
I don't actually disagree with the general definition but I am merely arguing that there is definitely even in its inception a dichotomy and acceptance that is ingrained and not supported by some of the very games this definition purports.
So, being massively multiplayer literally means having a "massive" amount of players within the same virtual environment. If we can interact with one another without changing environments (i.e. going through a loading screen) then we are part of the same environment and count towards the multiplayer cap. If we cannot interact with each other without going through a loading screen, then we aren't "multiplaying".
Where does that place Everquest ? You couldn't interact a lot of times without loading since the game was divided into zones. Some zones beyond a 100 was already pushing it since it would lag the game big time.
In spite of being divided by zones and being unable to interact without zoning several times into various different zones, no one ever argued Everquest was not an MMORPG
You also spoke about the minimum number from 500 which was your preference to 250 of Garriott and Koster and finally the 128 figure. Again I bring up the Everquest example but will add in the raids and dungeons in WoW. If you say that there must be a possibility of interacting with at least 128 people , must it exist in all parts of the game. For instance in WoW Dungeons you can only interact with 5 people or up 40 in a raid. That is not Massively by any stretch.
If you say that is allowed as while you are searching for members you are interacting with the rest of the population on the server, then why don't hubs work? Why can't a game have a hub where up to 250 people or 128 come together and go off to do stuff in dungeons or zones with limited numbers?
I don't actually disagree with the general definition but I am merely arguing that there is definitely even in its inception a dichotomy and acceptance that is ingrained and not supported by some of the very games this definition purports.
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Everquest and how it splits up its zones, so can't talk about it really. But, remember I said the number is subjective and changes over time, so the numbers everquest requires would be smaller than today, because back then the competition was smaller too.
On the more general question, I would say as long as one zone/area/map/whatever can support massively multiplayer numbers then that is enough. For example, ESO has a player cap of 150 if I remember correctly. So, that wouldn't be an MMO in my eyes. However, Cyrodiil has a cap of 600, making it an MMO. Similarly, SWTOR had a player cap of 75 everywhere, so that's not an MMO.
With WoW, again, I'm not familiar with it. It's my understanding that most of the open world is interconnected and thus allows massively multiplayer numbers, and that the open pvp zones allow large numbers. But, i don't have first-hand knowledge and I'm not sure where layers figure into it.
You're right about WoW the rest of the world does not have zones they flow smoothly but the dungeons are all instanced.
Everquest is heavily zoned probably because of the tech back then but Asheron's Call wasn't, so may not be the tech then, but they decided to go with zones. You can talk in the zone chat to everyone in the zone but if you want to trade or talk (you can use tell though ) or see anyone outside that zone you will have to load to another area with a loading screen.
However the dungeons were in one zone and lots of areas were camped by groups and you would wander about waiting in a queue until someone leaves the group and you get a spot then you sit there hours and hours with the people in that one spot. I don't see how interacting in this limited way falls within the definition. Again it must be the the fact that you can possibly interact with all those other people that seems to be the deciding factor.
However I do not consider this type of gaming experience within the spirit of massively multiplayer, do you?
Would a game that has instances for 20 vs 20 people that has a hub that supports 250 players qualify as an MMO?
At the risk of continuing to kick a dead horse, if the definition of MMO and MMORPG are what people have issue with, perhaps the problem is the label itself. Maybe something like POW (Persistent Online World) is more accurate.
But then again, the snowflakes with nothing better to do with just knit pick the definition of an online world... does that include online games with lobbies like MOBAs? Does that include Everquest style RPGs with zone lines? Does it only apply to RPGs without borders and instancing?
You get the point right? The problem is people have nothing better to do than worry about stupid shit.
At the risk of continuing to kick a dead horse, if the definition of MMO and MMORPG are what people have issue with, perhaps the problem is the label itself. Maybe something like POW (Persistent Online World) is more accurate.
But then again, the snowflakes with nothing better to do with just knit pick the definition of an online world... does that include online games with lobbies like MOBAs? Does that include Everquest style RPGs with zone lines? Does it only apply to RPGs without borders and instancing?
You get the point right? The problem is people have nothing better to do than worry about stupid shit.
Or BIFF! (Big Internet Frag Fest)
Or Kazam! (Killer Awesome Zone Army Mayhem).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
At the risk of continuing to kick a dead horse, if the definition of MMO and MMORPG are what people have issue with, perhaps the problem is the label itself. Maybe something like POW (Persistent Online World) is more accurate.
But then again, the snowflakes with nothing better to do with just knit pick the definition of an online world... does that include online games with lobbies like MOBAs? Does that include Everquest style RPGs with zone lines? Does it only apply to RPGs without borders and instancing?
You get the point right? The problem is people have nothing better to do than worry about stupid shit.
The thing is people could just use the term MMORPG to avoid the confusion. But they insist to argue about the term MMO.
There is no need to argue if LoL is a MMO, because they just call themself MOBA anyway.
Comments
Its not time that will tell you that you are wrong, its everyone who knows how english works that will.
You could easily google each word and learn how things like adverbs and adjectives work. You have the internet at your fingertips. Educate yourself. If you like games that aren't MMO but require the MMO initialism to feel like the game is worth playing despite the game not having any MMO well... you've got weird issues man. Cause I can play any game and do not need to pretend a 16 player game is an MMO.
Using your logic we can make RPG = RTS. We can make LOL stand for Single player... words are meaningless!
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
And yes, "dike" now has another meaning besides its original, but it still means a wall of earth to hold back water. Gay still means happy. Black still describes a color. Faggot still is an amount of cut wood, or a cigarette in England.
Now, 20 years ago, 8MB of RAM was a "massive" amount along with 100MB hard drives. Today, not so much. So, in relation, the descriptor can change over time. 256 seemed to be any upper limit, thanks to the binary language. But it has gone from singles to trillions.
The kicker is, many League of Legends matches have more players "interacting" with each other than many MMO games
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
One criteria was at least 500 players which could interact in a single server or world.
They have long since sold out...err backed off on this position to maintain some sort of relevance, but I still hold true to their original figure.
"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 New Worlds atm
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
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
But hey, most here will long out live me so they'll get the final say.
Hmm, maybe I'll have the definition of MMO engraved on my tombstone....
"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 New Worlds atm
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
I suppose I must reply to your missive about massive, but time it short and so is the reply. I noticed you tend to drop the RPG which I think is rather important but did not call you out on that until you decided Massively rather than Massive was so important. So your definition is wrong right there, MMORPG's are all about the RPG and the fact it gets dropped shows you those games may well not be MMORPG's at all. But I except it has come into common usage as "MMO", what I object to is when posters conveniently use this to forget these are meant to be RPG's online.
Your use of “MMO” is very literal, ten thousand players in room is not a MMO or a MMORPG for that matter. Nor is 16 players in 625 rooms.
“Take an english clash and stop writing so cliche in an vain attempt to come off intelligent.”
- The word English is always spelt with a capital “E” and it is “class” not “clash”, some would say that cliché should have an accented “e” but I am being generous and will let you off there, I was rather taking liberties with that hyphen myself. If you need a reference to a night school for some remedial English I can point you in the right direction.
You are clearly arguing for the sake of arguing so I leave it there, carry on if you wish. My last advice is these are only games, don’t let them boil your blood.
Everquest is heavily zoned probably because of the tech back then but Asheron's Call wasn't, so may not be the tech then, but they decided to go with zones. You can talk in the zone chat to everyone in the zone but if you want to trade or talk (you can use tell though ) or see anyone outside that zone you will have to load to another area with a loading screen.
However the dungeons were in one zone and lots of areas were camped by groups and you would wander about waiting in a queue until someone leaves the group and you get a spot then you sit there hours and hours with the people in that one spot. I don't see how interacting in this limited way falls within the definition. Again it must be the the fact that you can possibly interact with all those other people that seems to be the deciding factor.
However I do not consider this type of gaming experience within the spirit of massively multiplayer, do you?
Would a game that has instances for 20 vs 20 people that has a hub that supports 250 players qualify as an MMO?
But then again, the snowflakes with nothing better to do with just knit pick the definition of an online world... does that include online games with lobbies like MOBAs? Does that include Everquest style RPGs with zone lines? Does it only apply to RPGs without borders and instancing?
You get the point right? The problem is people have nothing better to do than worry about stupid shit.
Or Kazam! (Killer Awesome Zone Army Mayhem).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
There is no need to argue if LoL is a MMO, because they just call themself MOBA anyway.