a new gametype/ subcategory ?

craynlon

i thing with the recent developement in so called mmorpgs we might need a new (sub)category of the term mmo

everyone has a vague feeling about whats a sandbox mmo but how do called that other thing ?

what i mean is a game like aoc and maybe sw:tor amongst others wich have a big fokus on single player experience and storytelling opposed to grouping and open world concepts.

some of these games are close to classic single player games (i.e. tombraider, prince of persia) only that they are played online and you have a chance to walk into and play with pc as opposed to a world solemnly populated by npc.

i wouldnt call them instanced game because instancing is to much a technical term.

maybe they should be called: "online single player games with multiplay option"



wich brings me to the question if the new trend is also a move for companies to protect their games.



example:

if sw:tor would be a single player game like kotor the game would be pirated a thousand times 

now sw:tor will be labeled mmo and people are exited about it instead of beeing pissed off at a single player game that forces online-activation. plus theres the extra monthly fee that goes directly back to the company.

EvilGargamel

Originally posted by craynlon


i thing with the recent developement in so called mmorpgs we might need a new (sub)category of the term mmo
everyone has a vague feeling about whats a sandbox mmo but how do called that other thing ?

what i mean is a game like aoc and maybe sw:tor amongst others wich have a big fokus on single player experience and storytelling opposed to grouping and open world concepts.
some of these games are close to classic single player games (i.e. tombraider, prince of persia) only that they are played online and you have a chance to walk into and play with pc as opposed to a world solemnly populated by npc.
i wouldnt call them instanced game because instancing is to much a technical term.

maybe they should be called: "online single player games with multiplay option"



wich brings me to the question if the new trend is also a move for companies to protect their games.



example:

if sw:tor would be a single player game like kotor the game would be pirated a thousand times 

now sw:tor will be labeled mmo and people are exited about it instead of beeing pissed off at a single player game that forces online-activation. plus theres the extra monthly fee that goes directly back to the company.

 

connecting to a server to play a single player game?

craynlon

thats to easy,

even if you would have to log in to a server to play assassins creed you would not run into other players that are online at the same time nor would you have the option to make groups to explore extra content thats only groupable.

also in contrast to single player games that have online coop modes these "heavily single player orientated mmos" claim to provide a persistant world

Gyrus

Originally posted by craynlon


i thing with the recent developement in so called mmorpgs we might need a new (sub)category of the term mmo
everyone has a vague feeling about whats a sandbox mmo but how do called that other thing ?

what i mean is a game like aoc and maybe sw:tor amongst others wich have a big fokus on single player experience and storytelling opposed to grouping and open world concepts.
some of these games are close to classic single player games (i.e. tombraider, prince of persia) only that they are played online and you have a chance to walk into and play with pc as opposed to a world solemnly populated by npc.
i wouldnt call them instanced game because instancing is to much a technical term.

maybe they should be called: "online single player games with multiplay option"



wich brings me to the question if the new trend is also a move for companies to protect their games.



...

 

100% agree.  In fact I think MMORPG.com need to have a serious look at the games they include based on the definition given here

The issue as I see it is this:

"500 or more simultaneous players in one world.

* The game must include some form of graphical common area. This distinction means Diablo II is not considered an MMORPG, while Guild Wars is...."

- So here is my problem with this concept - does some kind of Graphical 'lobby' make a game an MMO?

And if you stretch that just a little - doesn't the Wii have some kind of lobby like this?  Does this make the Wii (and some other consoles too) a MMO?

It was The Agency that really got me thinking about this... there is a common area - but based on what I have read and seen there is limited interaction in this 'common area' - so how does this differ from a chat room type lobby?

Related comments and my appraisal here

And that in turn got me thinking about some other recent MMOs.

Pirates of the Burning Sea.  Here is a 'world' which is heavily instanced... on the travel map I can see other players...in towns I can see other players... but my interaction with them is limited to chat, emotes and trade?

On the world travel map I can see Battle Markers but that's it... I can't actually watch the battle... it's in an instance.  So, how does the world travel map in PotBS differ from a 'graphical lobby'?

I think it's an issue MMORPG .com needs to look at because as graphics become 'cheaper' we can expect to see a lot more of the games with 'graphical lobbies'. 

Surely there is a difference between an MMO and a game with Multiplayer options?

craynlon

lets call them SPOGMO

Single Player Online Game with Multiplayer Option

 a typical example would be Age of Conan imho where you can singleplay around 70-80% of the games (story)content

i wouldnt say this is neccessarily bad but it feels different then the mmos of old where i remember for example waiting 30min-1h for a healer or buffer to log in in lineage2 bevore i could start xping