The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct?
Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
Well, it is fair to assume that Blizzard will use a lobby type system where players create games. I believe the basis of Battle.net 2 will be battle.net and the systems will be basically similar.
So even if you were right and lobby games count as MMOs (they don't), then you can't even prove D3 is a lobby game. Show me the facts. You can't because Blizz is being tight lipped on the new Battlenet, and for all we know it could be completely different than anything anyone is expecting.
"Experience the intensity of multiplayer Diablo III over an all-new, wickedly enhanced Battle.net platform with numerous enhancements to make connecting with your friends easier, and cooperative gameplay more fun."
The battle.net that Starcraft 2 will be using is the exact same as Diablo 3, is it fair to assume Starcraft 2 is lobby based? Yes.
You're going to use a PR soundbite for conclusive proof? If you take all PR and hype as proof, you must have a ton of disappointments when it comes to MMOs.
How is the PR bullshit, it is off their main features page, however, with a knowledge of Diablo 2 and Diablo, and the fact that all of Blizzards online games are built off of Battle.net for multiplayer, how do you conclude it will use anything but a lobby system?
Originally posted by Czargio Originally posted by Gestankfaust
Originally posted by Czargio
Originally posted by Gestankfaust
Originally posted by Czargio The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct? Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent? It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent. So where's that logic you were speaking of? Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
You asked the question...and it was answered. DOn't stretch it out.
Instanced = not persistent = not MMO according to the original question. Answered.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct?
Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
Actually not. The game world will still be there but only in name, because when you log off the instance resets itself.
You're completely disregarding the non-instanced parts of the game!
All I'm trying to say is that you're all trying to draw some line in the sand about what is 'too instanced,' but it is an arbitrary line you made up because Guild Wars rubs you the wrong way.
The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct?
Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
Well it is not an mmo when the people who made it said it is not an mmo.
The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct?
Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
There is no gameplay outside these instances whatsoever.
The question is: where is the persistent world? Guild Wars has a persistent world, which is one reason why it is considered an MMO. Lobby type games have no persistent world, they just keep starting over every time someone creates a server. If you're using games like Exteel and Rakion to justify lobby games as MMOs, then the game list should at least double in size, if not more. For example: TF2 and L4D are now MMOs. Does that sound remotely correct?
Most people agree those games shouldn't be on the list, so stop trying to justify putting more wrong games on the list because of the flukes.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
Actually not. The game world will still be there but only in name, because when you log off the instance resets itself.
You're completely disregarding the non-instanced parts of the game!
All I'm trying to say is that you're all trying to draw some line in the sand about what is 'too instanced,' but it is an arbitrary line you made up because Guild Wars rubs you the wrong way.
No...we aren't. You asked the question originally by asking what is too instanced and mentioning persistence. We just think D3 and the other mentioned aren't MMOs
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Diablo III will benefit from Battle.net upgrades that will provide some exciting new features for players. Cooperative online play remains a primary focus, with multiple enhancements being planned to make connecting with your friends easier and cooperative play even more fun. We’ll have more details on all these aspects as well as other exciting new features at a later date.
"
How will PvP be implemented in Diablo III?
With regard to the multiplayer component of Diablo III, the emphasis will be on cooperative play, but we will also include support for competitive play. What form that support will take is still being discussed, but we are being careful to avoid features that can easily lead to griefing, such as the ability to go hostile at will.
"
Kinda gray still
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Simple game players, without any superior degree are learning by experience what science knows for years...
The importance of definitions and concepts.
Why do we discuss over Massive, Massivelly, MMO, MMORPGs and others so frequently recently...
Its getting even more aparent each day. More and more players are realizing the importance of having a standard.
Due to the lack of the aforementioned, any game nowadays do and say what they want.
MMORPG.com swallow it up because of the advertisement money and insider information.
They wont stretch the rules, wich would limit themselfs. But we, the players, we know that most of the games on this list are bullshit and shouldnt be here.
Even though a game like Diablo 3 also shouldnt be on the list.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING COHERENCE OF THE LIST?!
Its time for them to clean it up, stop with the hypocrite rules or say out loud: WE ARE NOT COVERING JUST MMORPGS ANYMORE.
Simple game players, without any superior degree are learning by experience what science knows for years...
The importance of definitions and concepts.
Why do we discuss over Massive, Massivelly, MMO, MMORPGs and others so frequently recently...
Its getting even more aparent each day. More and more players are realizing the importance of having a standard.
Due to the lack of the aforementioned, any game nowadays do and say what they want. MMORPG.com swallow it up because of the advertisement money and insider information.
They wont stretch the rules, wich would limit themselfs. But we, the players, we know that most of the games on this list are bullshit and shouldnt be here.
Even though a game like Diablo 3 also shouldnt be on the list. WHERE IS THE FUCKING COHERENCE OF THE LIST?! Its time for them to clean it up, stop with the hypocrite rules or say out loud: WE ARE NOT COVERING JUST MMORPGS ANYMORE.
And back to my main point, there should then be no reason not to add Diablo 3 to the game list, and then I guess GunZ: The Duel, and Infinity Online (the RPG) and every single lobby game around.
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
And back to my main point, there should then be no reason not to add Diablo 3 to the game list, and then I guess GunZ: The Duel, and Infinity Online (the RPG) and every single lobby game around.
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
Agreed.
I did get what you were saying Mr Roboto. I can't wait for D3...MMO or not
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
And back to my main point, there should then be no reason not to add Diablo 3 to the game list, and then I guess GunZ: The Duel, and Infinity Online (the RPG) and every single lobby game around.
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
Agreed.
I did get what you were saying Mr Roboto. I can't wait for D3...MMO or not
I know what you mean : ).
I have nothing to play right now , waiting for Starcraft 2 to start my massive slew of game playing.
SCII > Diablo 3 > SW:TOR > FFXIV > Guild Wars 2
Not in release order, because I have no clue except that SCII will probably be first.
Change the name of the site to MORPG .. problem solved.
Diablo 3 is probably a better game than 95% of the games listed here. Since lots of MMORPG players probably would play it anyway, may as well include it.
Change the name of the site to MORPG .. problem solved. Diablo 3 is probably a better game than 95% of the games listed here. Since lots of MMORPG players probably would play it anyway, may as well include it.
It isn't about whats a better game as that's very opinionated, it's about what is an MMORPG, what they want on their lists, and if games similar to Diablo 2 or 3 are on the list, why shouldn't they be included, aswell as other game that are similar, that have not been.
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Originally posted by nariusseldon
Change the name of the site to MORPG .. problem solved. Diablo 3 is probably a better game than 95% of the games listed here. Since lots of MMORPG players probably would play it anyway, may as well include it.
I'm amazed by your manner of reasoning.
This is an apple and it tastes better than tomatoes so it's natural that we throw apples at cars off the thruway.
I know what you mean : ). I have nothing to play right now , waiting for Starcraft 2 to start my massive slew of game playing. SCII > Diablo 3 > SW:TOR > FFXIV > Guild Wars 2 Not in release order, because I have no clue except that SCII will probably be first.
Hello? Earth to mr Roboto?
Dragon Age: Origins is releasing in a month, Biowares new masterpiece. You seem to like the same games as me so do yourself a favour and add it before Starcraft2.
imho, they neede to come up with another "name" for the genre...
A game that you can play offline with the same content as the online game should not be considered a MMORPG (class) kind of game. What MMORPG should be I'm not sure, but I never really thought the name fitted the genre it represented...
A game played exclusively online.
A game you paid full price for, and
A game you pay a monthly fee for.
That's the basic makeup for a MMORPG (class) game for me that's constant. F2P games already have their names... so maybe it should from NOW ON HENCEFORTH BE KNOWN AS P2P (pay to play) RPGs...
P2PRPG it is then...
Diablo 1,2 or 3 are not P2PRPGs... after purchasing the initial product, you do not have to pay any more for the content in a form of a monthly fee.
That work?
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Guild Wars isn't an MMO, this is a fact that the developers have talked about several times.
Lobbies have nothing to do with an MMO. It's only massive is they are all playing. Which is why I don't understand why GW is an MMO. Comes close enough I suppose though.
Guild Wars is not a mmo, the guys Arenanet said so themselves.
Anyway this has been asked many times before and the response is usually that due to the ever expanding online multiplayer genre mmorpg.com has become more lenient on what goes on the site....
And back to my main point, there should then be no reason not to add Diablo 3 to the game list, and then I guess GunZ: The Duel, and Infinity Online (the RPG) and every single lobby game around.
yeah, id have to say that the main reason is it isnt an MMO, also the other games probably have MMO elements, don't know for sure, but my guess is those other games have mmo elements, similar to champions online ( touts itself as an mmo) but each instance is limited to 50 players which in my opinion 50 players is nowhere near massive, halo3 has big battles with 50 players i thing ( it is 50 right?) and its never been considered an mmo, nor should it.
The second Diablo 3 is on the game list is the second I leave the site. I'm sick of Guild Wars and all the rest being on this website. Diablo 3 isn't an MMO and at no point do they say it's an MMO.
Well, the first and most obvious thing is that it's not being marketed as an MMORPG.
The second thing is, yeah. We don't know how the game will work yet.
If it has some persistent player progression data that is kept server-side (character data, for instance), then it can be considered an MMORPG.
That's really the big difference in genre. "MMO" implies that you can't legally (under the TOS / EULA) alter your character with a third party program. A single player game with multiplayer capability doesn't have any such restrictions.
There is one difference between Diablo 3 and the other games mentioned and that's that Diablo 3 can be played single player.
I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be listed.
I wish MMORPG would revamp their site and only put on games that fit with a more accurate description of a MMORPG too. I think they should just expand their general gaming forum sections and list all those other multiplayer games in a seperate sub-section in that.
Comments
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
So even if you were right and lobby games count as MMOs (they don't), then you can't even prove D3 is a lobby game. Show me the facts. You can't because Blizz is being tight lipped on the new Battlenet, and for all we know it could be completely different than anything anyone is expecting.
"Experience the intensity of multiplayer Diablo III over an all-new, wickedly enhanced Battle.net platform with numerous enhancements to make connecting with your friends easier, and cooperative gameplay more fun."
The battle.net that Starcraft 2 will be using is the exact same as Diablo 3, is it fair to assume Starcraft 2 is lobby based? Yes.
You're going to use a PR soundbite for conclusive proof? If you take all PR and hype as proof, you must have a ton of disappointments when it comes to MMOs.
How is the PR bullshit, it is off their main features page, however, with a knowledge of Diablo 2 and Diablo, and the fact that all of Blizzards online games are built off of Battle.net for multiplayer, how do you conclude it will use anything but a lobby system?
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
You asked the question...and it was answered. DOn't stretch it out.
Instanced = not persistent = not MMO according to the original question. Answered.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
Actually not. The game world will still be there but only in name, because when you log off the instance resets itself.
You're completely disregarding the non-instanced parts of the game!
All I'm trying to say is that you're all trying to draw some line in the sand about what is 'too instanced,' but it is an arbitrary line you made up because Guild Wars rubs you the wrong way.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
Well it is not an mmo when the people who made it said it is not an mmo.
or do you know more than them :P
March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
GW is ALL instanced...WoW is only partially instanced. And the instances are just that....an instance. Not persistent.
So where's that logic you were speaking of?
Guild Wars is not ALL instanced. Towns and outposts are giant meeting hubs for all players. So how do you draw the line over what is 'Too Instanced' to be considered massive? Any line will be arbitrary, so it is not a good way to judge how 'massive' a game is.
There is no gameplay outside these instances whatsoever.
How is GW persistent?
It's linear and after you complete an area....it's done. Sounds single player to me. Unless they changed something where it's not all instanced for up to a few players at a time.
Persistent != Not Instanced. When you log off, you know that the world is still there going on without you. People are still playing. Using your logic, Wow is only half MMO. the battlegrounds, the arenas, the instances, the raids, none of them are part of the massive world of WoW.
Actually not. The game world will still be there but only in name, because when you log off the instance resets itself.
You're completely disregarding the non-instanced parts of the game!
All I'm trying to say is that you're all trying to draw some line in the sand about what is 'too instanced,' but it is an arbitrary line you made up because Guild Wars rubs you the wrong way.
No...we aren't. You asked the question originally by asking what is too instanced and mentioning persistence. We just think D3 and the other mentioned aren't MMOs
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
btw...
From the D3 website:
"
What can you tell us about Battle.net?
Diablo III will benefit from Battle.net upgrades that will provide some exciting new features for players. Cooperative online play remains a primary focus, with multiple enhancements being planned to make connecting with your friends easier and cooperative play even more fun. We’ll have more details on all these aspects as well as other exciting new features at a later date.
"
How will PvP be implemented in Diablo III?
With regard to the multiplayer component of Diablo III, the emphasis will be on cooperative play, but we will also include support for competitive play. What form that support will take is still being discussed, but we are being careful to avoid features that can easily lead to griefing, such as the ability to go hostile at will.
"
Kinda gray still
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Simple game players, without any superior degree are learning by experience what science knows for years...
The importance of definitions and concepts.
Why do we discuss over Massive, Massivelly, MMO, MMORPGs and others so frequently recently...
Its getting even more aparent each day. More and more players are realizing the importance of having a standard.
Due to the lack of the aforementioned, any game nowadays do and say what they want.
MMORPG.com swallow it up because of the advertisement money and insider information.
They wont stretch the rules, wich would limit themselfs. But we, the players, we know that most of the games on this list are bullshit and shouldnt be here.
Even though a game like Diablo 3 also shouldnt be on the list.
WHERE IS THE FUCKING COHERENCE OF THE LIST?!
Its time for them to clean it up, stop with the hypocrite rules or say out loud: WE ARE NOT COVERING JUST MMORPGS ANYMORE.
This.
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
Agreed.
I did get what you were saying Mr Roboto. I can't wait for D3...MMO or not
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yes there is a reason. It's not an MMORPG.
They should not add Diablo3 and delete those other non-MMORPGS that you found. Your main point is stupid, sorry.
He's not saying as much as to add Diablo 3 as he is saying for this website to be more clear about its definition of mmorpg and what games can be added to the list. this website says they only add games that meet a certain criteria but there are many games on the list that don't meet this criteria at all.
Agreed.
I did get what you were saying Mr Roboto. I can't wait for D3...MMO or not
I know what you mean : ).
I have nothing to play right now
, waiting for Starcraft 2 to start my massive slew of game playing.
SCII > Diablo 3 > SW:TOR > FFXIV > Guild Wars 2
Not in release order, because I have no clue except that SCII will probably be first.
Change the name of the site to MORPG .. problem solved.
Diablo 3 is probably a better game than 95% of the games listed here. Since lots of MMORPG players probably would play it anyway, may as well include it.
It isn't about whats a better game as that's very opinionated, it's about what is an MMORPG, what they want on their lists, and if games similar to Diablo 2 or 3 are on the list, why shouldn't they be included, aswell as other game that are similar, that have not been.
I'm amazed by your manner of reasoning.
This is an apple and it tastes better than tomatoes so it's natural that we throw apples at cars off the thruway.
Hello? Earth to mr Roboto?
Dragon Age: Origins is releasing in a month, Biowares new masterpiece. You seem to like the same games as me so do yourself a favour and add it before Starcraft2.
dragonage.bioware.com/
That wont help you right now but at least in a month and before SC2 releases
Ediited spelling error
imho, they neede to come up with another "name" for the genre...
A game that you can play offline with the same content as the online game should not be considered a MMORPG (class) kind of game. What MMORPG should be I'm not sure, but I never really thought the name fitted the genre it represented...
A game played exclusively online.
A game you paid full price for, and
A game you pay a monthly fee for.
That's the basic makeup for a MMORPG (class) game for me that's constant. F2P games already have their names... so maybe it should from NOW ON HENCEFORTH BE KNOWN AS P2P (pay to play) RPGs...
P2PRPG it is then...
Diablo 1,2 or 3 are not P2PRPGs... after purchasing the initial product, you do not have to pay any more for the content in a form of a monthly fee.
That work?
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Guild Wars isn't an MMO, this is a fact that the developers have talked about several times.
Guild Wars is not a mmo, the guys Arenanet said so themselves.
Anyway this has been asked many times before and the response is usually that due to the ever expanding online multiplayer genre mmorpg.com has become more lenient on what goes on the site....
And back to my main point, there should then be no reason not to add Diablo 3 to the game list, and then I guess GunZ: The Duel, and Infinity Online (the RPG) and every single lobby game around.
Sucks to be you.
yeah, id have to say that the main reason is it isnt an MMO, also the other games probably have MMO elements, don't know for sure, but my guess is those other games have mmo elements, similar to champions online ( touts itself as an mmo) but each instance is limited to 50 players which in my opinion 50 players is nowhere near massive, halo3 has big battles with 50 players i thing ( it is 50 right?) and its never been considered an mmo, nor should it.
The second Diablo 3 is on the game list is the second I leave the site. I'm sick of Guild Wars and all the rest being on this website. Diablo 3 isn't an MMO and at no point do they say it's an MMO.
Well, the first and most obvious thing is that it's not being marketed as an MMORPG.
The second thing is, yeah. We don't know how the game will work yet.
If it has some persistent player progression data that is kept server-side (character data, for instance), then it can be considered an MMORPG.
That's really the big difference in genre. "MMO" implies that you can't legally (under the TOS / EULA) alter your character with a third party program. A single player game with multiplayer capability doesn't have any such restrictions.
There is one difference between Diablo 3 and the other games mentioned and that's that Diablo 3 can be played single player.
I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be listed.
I wish MMORPG would revamp their site and only put on games that fit with a more accurate description of a MMORPG too. I think they should just expand their general gaming forum sections and list all those other multiplayer games in a seperate sub-section in that.
Games on this website can only played while online, there is no offline single player experience.
Diablo 3 obviously is a single player game with added multiplayer support.
If you were talking about adding just for that then add:
Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2