It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
From everything I've seen and read about this game, the fun comes from two main sources:Wizardry said:I noticed a word i used to see a lot and have completely laughed at of late because i know how gamer's play these mmorpg's but i am still very curious.
That word is FUN...so truly curious here because i still yet to understand the attraction to this game,what will be this game's FUN factor that i or anyone else can't get in the already multitude of games out there?
I get this real feeling watching game supporters that it is alot like music,sometimes people support music groups or types just to be different,also just like people dying their hair or wearing earrings where they don't belong,people just need to feel umm what's the term like a rebel or just to be different than the rest of the crowd.
Me i am just that plain ol Joe err Bob looking for a quality and yet yikes "FUN"game to play.To me Fun is in the systems,does a game offer me something unique and different so that i can THINK a bit,manage my resources and perhaps utilize team work in combat.I also at this point MUST have no hand holding markers of any kind,so to make it simple,a fully immersive game,nothing that just looks like computer code tossed into a generated world.
Yup, thats the bit I don't understand. I have absolutely zero problem with this website covering other genres, in fact I encourage it because, as you say, there is a lot of overlapping interest from the MMO crowd. Whilst MMORPG remains my favourite genre, I do play lots of other genres and I like reading about them here.GeezerGamer said:That was all a precursor so that lists like these can be made.........cameltosis said:For those arguing about the definition of MMO.
Bill et al actually did an editorial on the definition of MMO a while back.
For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space.
But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO".
Bills exact definition:
"To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."
This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself.
But WTF is this really?
This moving target definition of an MMO was set up so they could wind up Putting completely dissimilar games like GW2 and Destiny 2 in the came comparative lists for the benefit of mmorpg.com.
Now mmorpg.com gets to feature any game that requires an Internet connection, and put it up against BDO, GW, FFXIV, ESO etc, regardless of what that game actually is.
It's not like it isnt' obvious. mmorpg.com changed from mmorpgs to mmo/rpg. But in the end that wasn't enough. because some games are neither. If a PVP game features 4v4, it's neither an MMO nor is it an RPG. But Bill likes the game and wants it featured here. Or maybe the game wants to be featured on this site. Thus an "expanded definition" of the term MMO and/or RPG is required to justify featuring it. That is, if we stick to the MMO / RPG formula.
I don't understand why the site doesn't just use the justification of "Overlapping Audience". IT makes perfect sense that this site covers a game like Warframe. Or Destiny, or LoL. But don't put some 4 player lobby game in a comparison list as BDO and gall it a day because you like both games. becasue not everyone does.
Otherwise this site becomes www.bcuzbillsasyso.com