It was a nice read till I got to the same old SWTOR is a single player/co-op game bull. Also I'd love to see the info. on this player lobby that people have been talking about in SWTOR. Don't know how MMORPG.com expects forum posters to follow guidelines when their writers can't color inside the lines either. If this was included in the SWTOR forum then the thread would be closed and this would be the last post:
While I enjoyed your article I think there is a more succinct answer. Those games that are very heavily instanced are not MMORPGS, they are MORPGs. (Massive Multiplayer Online - Massive). This site should just add a rating for mass. small, medium, large, MASSIVE!. or Tall, Grande, Vinte, Massive!
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Originally posted by gorgogorn By this definition EQ wasn't an MMO either because each zone was a seperate instance.
There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between zones and instances. EQ had no instances at all untill the Lost Dungeons of Norrath expansion and that was..um, four or five years after release or something like that.
Yeah sorry I misspoke when I wrote that. It was late. I was trying to comment on the seamless part of the post I quoted.
Article was nice to read, but one thing needs to be correction.
Article seem to mix multiplayer online games and massive multiplayer online games. Yes, many new game design seem to go more direction of multiplayer online game. How ever, MOG's and MMOG's are two very different genre. MMO is where huge amount of players can do actions togather in online so that they can see others actions. Multiplayer online game is just game where group of players play togather.
In MMO's there is possibility that server population create community, as doing togather something as community. Not just as group of player playing togather. Multiplayer online games are just games where you can play with frieds. That is the difference. Now because some player may think that MMO's feel like the multiplayer game, doens't mean they are. So, are MMO's going to direction of MOG's? Yes and no. MMO's are still MMO's, but some people seem to think MMO(RP)G's are same as MOG's. They are mistaken, because they don't understand the difference.
An interesting article, but one that fails to note a key point at this development crossroad: This genre hybridization isn't being done for creative reasons, or to better serve the consumer. It is happening because console and single-player game makers want two things that their mmo-making brethren already have: 1) recurring revenue 2) an end to consumers physically owning their product (which will in turn lead to more of 1) If all this co-mingling were being done in the name of making great new games, I'd be all for it. Sadly, the real motives are completely transparent. When game developers get back to designing great gameplay and great stories (instead of great new payment models), I'll start buying games again.
that one, want to play good games, but when made "MMOs" just to get paid extra....well sux, the current 15$ standard way exceed the server costs, that those fees original were exuced by (dev cost covered by expansion/pack sales)
you see fast made crappy MMOs where only thing that matters is to get Phat lewt....used to be a joke that it was what ppl were after, now its reality....which well Id never pay 15$/month for.
sure always been great to get some nice item for your char, but it should never be about get the item. but how you got there...absolutely hate that lvling is just a timesink before "the real point" of the game is accesible....which is the pointless flat loot, that is incredible dull to get because you do the same instance over and over....instances can be fun the first few times, but is very short lived
I'm tired putting in the time for craft items for other people so they can be effective in a raid and not seeing anything for my troubles.
I'm tired of waiting 20+ minus for a healer or tank to get back from tucking in his 3 year old daughter for the 100th time in the middle of a raid between boss fights.
Frankly, I'm just tired of people's fucking bullshit when all I want to do is play a game surrounded by other people with RPG elements.
What mmorpg means for me is stats on gear. Items I can craft. Epic quest chains that interact you with Iconic figures and rich lore. The Idea that I can take Items I have got on my main and give it to one of my thousands of alts. A pure hobby where I can spend time to enrich my full account full of characters of different classes. Last but, not least. Mmorpg means to me that I can encounter epic PVP Combat at any time or place. This is what makes a mmorpg a mmorpg to me.
Why I think companies like EA/Dice understand what players like me are after is because, there own developers fully interact with there player base on the forms and never belittle creative thinking and debate or talk down to those serious hardcores that look at the game with years of knowledge while gaming. Blizzard on the other hand even though when I did play WoW and when I did enjoy it. 80% of the time when it came to debate they acted like that parent figure looking down on you as if you were directly trying to kill there child with fire and piss on the ashes. Well that's the feeling I got even though quite a few of my ideas have been integrated into Warcraft (Call me delusional. I could give a @#$%).
A perfect example of this is the Dev know as HATE that is part of the Battlefield Heroes team. This guy knows what's going on. He collects player data. Interacts with players and really makes you feel like what you post hold some meaning if you are creative and are not scared to use reason and logic instead of arguements such as "You retard noob luls".
People like him are going to understand that the player loves elements from mmoprgs but, at the same time he understands that no one wants to work for others for nothing but, a simple act of faith you place yourself in other player's hands and pray they run you through next to get what you are after for your character.
FPS Developers understand that people enjoy 40% interaction with players. (Clan, Squads and league boards) and 60% of the time as a Lone wolf.
In short. Companies like Dice are heading in a new direction and one I have been waiting nearly 5 year or more for a company to take. Use RPG elements and get the MMO factior into the equation but, have the game set so, the player is sitting in the driver's seat. Not the game running on auto pilot and forcing the hand of that player to go in that direction or otherwise you'll just crash and burn.
I cannot wait. It's taking so long, If there was anyway I could go into the future just so I could play SWTOR and give up that 1 year of my life. I'd do it in a heartbeat because, I know that what they are trying to sell. It's the very image of a mmorpg I've been waiting for, for the last 10 years. By just going on the data they have already. I can see that I'll love playing it.
The day of the mmorpg elitist jerk is near it's end and it will be the FPS hardcore veterans that will drown out their sound with yells of HOORAH !
These games will defiantly need a new name, they are not MMO’s or FPS. You cant just put a FPS online and call it a MMO because its online. Borderlands can only have 4 people in each game….yes I said four. This is a Lobby game with character development, but it is not a MMO.
These games will defiantly need a new name, they are not MMO’s or FPS. You cant just put a FPS online and call it a MMO because its online. Borderlands can only have 4 people in each game….yes I said four. This is a Lobby game with character development, but it is not a MMO.
I agree....
However an MMO goes a few steps forward.....they feature the basic concept of effecting other players that dont have anything to do with your actual play.....In games like Diablo 2 lord of destruction a player could turn in stones of jordan to summon a massive monster.....and this is broadcast to everyone playing.
It is true boarder lands has the computer or electronic game concept element of RPGs added to it......
But we all have to remeber that computer RPGs are called that becasue they where based onthe original RPGs...the Paper and Pencil and dice role playing games.
But i think scot is onto something......maybe alot of the newer games should be called LobbyGames or LobbyRPGs....
then eventualy we can start refering to them to the types of gameplay they offer.....For example calling something a Grinder...meaning the type of game where you kill and kill and thats about it to level...or RPG where you have lots of quests and missions with actual stories and play that requires you to do more then kill stuff to get drops.
RPG or roll playing game means that you are playing a roll in some kind of story,and your roll can affect it.
Its not about lvls/gear its about you roll that could change or affect the way that story should go.
with MMO in prefix most of games are failing in concept of RPG.
You dont have any impact on story or things that happen around you if all you have done is dinged lvl 50 for example, or you have top gear in game.
today mmorpg tittle gets any game where you just go and grind 5kkk mobs for max lvl or do 5000 quests to get that max lvl.and thats fail cuz that quests you are doing means nothing to game it self,theres is no impact on any aspect of game except your personal lvl or gear.
SWOTR have chance to rly hit that RPG thing that many mmos miss.
For example take Mass Effect 2, your action(rolls) affecting story trough your conversations and decisions,while you are talking you can make story to go in several directions.
MMORPG isnt game which has inventory/lvls/gear/HP/MP/raid boss or something,it should be game where actions of group of ppl could affect world of that mmorpg permanently to every1 who plays it.
You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant.
MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
I place part of the responsibility on MMORPG.com. You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant. MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
i dont mind diff game but this site should add the brand of the game ,is it a?
mmo,mo,corpg,rts,fps etc true there are a lot of them but it would clarify lot of missunderstanding
Great article. I too hope to see developers try new things with the MMO genre. A lot of MMO fans, especially on this site's forum, are quick to put down a game that shows signs of being anything other than a pure MMO. SW:TOR criticism is a perfect example. "Bah, it's like a single-player game!" Are you so certain that if a game looks like it's not going to follow the same formula as WoW it's going to be a bad game? That's limited thinking. It discourages innovation, and encourages more WoW copying. To define MMO, I would go with the literal meaning of the words -- Massively Multiplayer Online. To me this means a lot of players (at least 100 or so) actively playing together simultaneously on the Internet. If you're in a lobby, you're not actually playing the game yet. If a lobby can make a game Massively Multiplayer, then Blizzard has been in the MMO business long before WoW with Battle.net. But no, obviously that's not an MMO. So I'm definitely not ready to lump a game like Borderlands which only lets you play with with a few other people at a time into the MMO genre. Where the breaking down of and experimenting with the MMORPG genre gets problematic and causes the most strife is with the pricing. What happens when a developer makes an MMO that's really nothing more than a single-player game with a lobby, and still charges $15/mo for it? Even if it's a great game with awesome gameplay and graphics and everything, who wants to pay a monthly subscription fee for a single-player game experience? Microtransactions also tend to crop up when the MMO genre is being experimented with, and we all know the problems that can cause. Players will resist games that appear to offer less than other MMORPGs while still charging the same fees or more. I would like to see developers do three things:
1. Be innovative with MMO games and try creating MMOGs in new ways
2. Don't get greedy with subscription fees and microtransactions
3. Be very clear about what the subscription fee pays for and/or be specific about what sort of microtransactions the game will have
You give very good reply and some very good points about price tag these games have well i can asure you i wont pay 15 euro for game i play solo, plus indeed if companys become greedy and ask for every new little patch money like new weapon or mount or second character or whatever i refuse to pay when i already pay 15bucks.
And your also right about defenition about witch game can call himself a mmo and witch one cannot.
People can not spent more as they have but all companys at moment including solo games try everything to get more DLC OR ITEMS SHOPS.
In long run its posible that people stay at one game becouse they spent to much money already on game by buying items in itemshop or buy less solo games becouse with 60 euro and all the DLC they wont buy same amount of games they did before the DLC become commen use these days.
I say item shops and DLC is short term it wont last long people dont suddenly buy way more stuff for same game and realise hey i can't buy music cd's or cloth or mobile phone becouse i spent it all on this bloody game.
Im not happy btw how Bioware direction go it smells GREED for solo and mmo.
Also look at 2K with bioshock they gonne aggresively appraoch customers with DLC and bethesda ask 20euros for small new content tthis aint a good development at all i say we start LOSING it for true gamers.
They think this is answer to piracy?
It will hit them back hard mark my words people are not as dumb as they think.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I place part of the responsibility on MMORPG.com. You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant. MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
I agree about the instancing part but I don't know how much I would blame this site. They don't design the games after all and most of the games whose mmorpg status is questionable are still potentially of interest to the people who come here so you can't really blame them for listing them. I just wish we (and this site) could categorize games a little more clearly.
The big problem is in the definition of what constitutes a mmorpg. I would say that the most fundamental requirement to be a mmorpg is that it is a game in which thousands of players share the same game world. The SAME world, not split off into instances but one persistant world.
I mean, that was the whole idea behind mmorpgs in the first place. The idea was to create game worlds which thousands of people would play in together. All one world which everyone would share. That was THE thing which differentiated mmorpgs from single player or mere multiplayer games.
This doesn't have anything to do with how much solo play or grouping there is. It has nothing to do with the nature of the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether it is level based or skill based, twitchy or not twitchy, themepark or sandbox. This is simply the most fundamental idea on which mmorpgs were created; which was the idea of putting thousands of people in the SAME PERSISTANT WORLD. A shared play-space.
Some people don't like sharing their play-space with others and that's fine. But we need to make a distinction between games which adhere to that most fundamental original concept and those which don't. If we're going to keep calling the games which don't adhere to it "mmorpgs" then maybe we need a new term for those games which do. Maybe "persistant world" games?
And yes, I know that this would require drawing an arbitrary line in the sand somewhere regarding how much instancing a game can have and still fit into that category. I suppose I would say that if more than 50% of the gameplay takes place in instances then it is NOT a persistant world game. At least not sufficiently so to be put in that category. Honestly I'd like to put that percentage lower but I'm trying to be halfway flexible.
Edit: typed "higher" where I should have typed "lower" so changed it.
poster 67 !the game maker have been trying to blur the line a lot so that some game arent mmo at all but consider themselves an mmo.so i wonder like the op! will all the game be branded mmo and player will end up leaving all mmo and go play console
game instead (i would not be surprised at all if it turned out like this)or gamer will only play f2p game they like and let the rest
I place part of the responsibility on MMORPG.com. You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant. MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
i dont mind diff game but this site should add the brand of the game ,is it a?
mmo,mo,corpg,rts,fps etc true there are a lot of them but it would clarify lot of missunderstanding
I agree completely with this post.
they perpetuate the misconception.
Especially with ads up and down with dragon age on their site.
although I'm expressing an opinion so I might get banned or warned at 3am for it.
putting thousand of players in one world is ok and you can kill it MMO,but if there is no roll to be played in that world then there is no point to add RPG,just add G then.
Basic idea of RPG element is that your action make impact on game world(that is that you are playing roll in that change).
Running around and doing /wave,/smile,/handshake etc. doesnt mean it RP its acting.With this emotions you are not playing any roll in game world change,you are acting in front of other player.
there is difference between act and roll play,but ppl today made it same and just added MMO in front of it with 'RP" servers....
80% of gamers dont know right meaning of RPG,to them RPG is when you have inventory to open,gain lvl,get gear and grind monsters/finish hundreds of meaningless quests...
Ppl usually miss concept of part RPG. RPG or roll playing game means that you are playing a roll in some kind of story,and your roll can affect it. Its not about lvls/gear its about you roll that could change or affect the way that story should go. with MMO in prefix most of games are failing in concept of RPG. You dont have any impact on story or things that happen around you if all you have done is dinged lvl 50 for example, or you have top gear in game. today mmorpg tittle gets any game where you just go and grind 5kkk mobs for max lvl or do 5000 quests to get that max lvl.and thats fail cuz that quests you are doing means nothing to game it self,theres is no impact on any aspect of game except your personal lvl or gear. SWOTR have chance to rly hit that RPG thing that many mmos miss. For example take Mass Effect 2, your action(rolls) affecting story trough your conversations and decisions,while you are talking you can make story to go in several directions. MMORPG isnt game which has inventory/lvls/gear/HP/MP/raid boss or something,it should be game where actions of group of ppl could affect world of that mmorpg permanently to every1 who plays it.
This is where I respectfully disagree. For me the "Roll" philosophy in Mmorpg is and should only be defined by what class you are playing.
Warriors for example are generally the tank in most mmorpgs but, then you can find also Paladins or Knights also filling this roll.
The main fail point in most Mmorpgs was the power 1 player can have over a group of people. For most of those hardcore Rper they are fine with this. However the common player in general hates being subjected to these rules.
If you look at history all mmorpgs have failed regarding this point and only Blizzard methods of this form of control has prevailed to the point where the community numbers are in the millions but, I don't think it's because of how 1 player effects another player and the world around him.
Now I talk a lot of shit about Wow and maybe because, I have 6 80s and 3 70s with all max professions and how I know that game better from the in side out then most mmorpgs. The player interaction is pretty good. You hook up with people to either raid or pvp with. However these is the only form and way of progression. Where as now crafting progression is stricky based off how much time that player wants to put into it where before it came down too what raid you could get into to get mats and patterns to craft decent items.
Wow's 2 biggest failed aspects is
1) The loot system is pretty damn greedy. You hope that the guy with Master loot powers sends your time you have been raiding for. for the last 2 months sends it to your bag. This is just too much power a player has over 1 person in a video game and it produces more rage then actual enjoyment to players.
2) Top progression Pvp requires a group of 3 or more. The great thing about Pvp is that you can jump in at anytime or be effected by Pvp regardless if you wish it or not. The progression in pvp is only the frosting on the cake. The real bread and butter is the different ways a player can go about to Pvp.
3) Instant lockout. Now I understand why they are in place to stop farmers form totally ruining the enjoyment of both the Raid and the AH and they way players could just abuse the AH but, really what's the difference between seeing 1 void crystal on the AH or millions ? Greed really and that's all there is too it. I don't want to spend months on 1 instants with 1 character while I have 5 others I want to progress though that same instance. The amount of time it takes for new content is just coming out at a light speed rate and then the expansion is over before you even get your main class in every Best in slot gear.
For me in the end Mmorpg means a hobby not a 18 hour shift job that wow turned into for me. This is probably why I now no longer play it. I came to the realization that no matter how much I raided or how much time I put in. As soon as I got to the best and top cutting edge progression for that 1 class in either Pve or PVP. I had about a week left to really enjoy my rewards from hard work put in before those items hit the bottom of the food chain.
This is were I believe Mmorpgs are failing and this is where i see a style of a game rise from the ashes and remove the part I hate most about mmorpgs. The power 1 player can have over my game play experience.
putting thousand of players in one world is ok and you can kill it MMO,but if there is no roll to be played in that world then there is no point to add RPG,just add G then. Basic idea of RPG element is that your action make impact on game world(that is that you are playing roll in that change). Running around and doing /wave,/smile,/handshake etc. doesnt mean it RP its acting.With this emotions you are not playing any roll in game world change,you are acting in front of other player. there is difference between act and roll play,but ppl today made it same and just added MMO in front of it with 'RP" servers.... 80% of gamers dont know right meaning of RPG,to them RPG is when you have inventory to open,gain lvl,get gear and grind monsters/finish hundreds of meaningless quests...
"doesnt mean it RP its acting"
lol
those are the same things guy.
role playing IS acting.
your playing a role. ie. acting? Have you ever watched a movie in your life?
I'm stunned someone could say something so devoid of intelligence.
I place part of the responsibility on MMORPG.com. You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant. MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
I agree about the instancing part but I don't know how much I would blame this site. They don't design the games after all and most of the games whose mmorpg status is questionable are still potentially of interest to the people who come here so you can't really blame them for listing them. I just wish we (and this site) could categorize games a little more clearly.
The big problem is in the definition of what constitutes a mmorpg. I would say that the most fundamental requirement to be a mmorpg is that it is a game in which thousands of players share the same game world. The SAME world, not split off into instances but one persistant world.
I mean, that was the whole idea behind mmorpgs in the first place. The idea was to create game worlds which thousands of people would play in together. All one world which everyone would share. That was THE thing which differentiated mmorpgs from single player or mere multiplayer games.
This doesn't have anything to do with how much solo play or grouping there is. It has nothing to do with the nature of the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether it is level based or skill based, twitchy or not twitchy, themepark or sandbox. This is simply the most fundamental idea on which mmorpgs were created; which was the idea of putting thousands of people in the SAME PERSISTANT WORLD. A shared play-space.
Some people don't like sharing their play-space with others and that's fine. But we need to make a distinction between games which adhere to that most fundamental original concept and those which don't. If we're going to keep calling the games which don't adhere to it "mmorpgs" then maybe we need a new term for those games which do. Maybe "persistant world" games?
And yes, I know that this would require drawing an arbitrary line in the sand somewhere regarding how much instancing a game can have and still fit into that category. I suppose I would say that if more than 50% of the gameplay takes place in instances then it is NOT a persistant world game. At least not sufficiently so to be put in that category. Honestly I'd like to put that percentage higher but I'm trying to be halfway flexible.
True, they don't design games, but they have chosen to focus on MMO's, and as such, they should have a definition, so they know what they are focusing on. Some of the games that are included, are as relevant to MMO as would be music or movies.
I agree strongly with your next points on the persistant world. I would just put the instancing as low as 5% (nothing more than starter area really), and the 5% should be non-important stuff to the gameplay or the world.
This is old territory but valid here. Lets define the terms. MMORPG.
M- Massive: This defined how large your game space should be to handle the number of players, interest, and scope.
M-Multiplayer: This ment more than one player to interact in the Massive space. This ment there should be operations that required more than one player. This should not be limited to just endgame content but features throughout the progression (if there is a progression).
O-Online: The entire game was taking place in a online envirement that used the feature as an intrigual part. Why have it if you don't use it?
RPG-Role-playing Game: From the early '70s to today this has been experiance in many forms and fashions from PnP table top to single player story based computer games. It's main feature is telling a story (whether short or long) that impacted the player.
Now many of these terms are defined very open ended. What game managers are trying to do is destill these features to thier most profitable focus while trying to make a fun experiance. Social and legal issue not withstanding. Here are some terms that can further focus the understanding of what the game is:
P-Perpetual: A consistant player instance that can contain the whole of that games server population.
I-Instance: A seperate room outside a Perpetual world play space that focues or isolates a give players experiance for that one story.
G-Grinder: A system of achievement that offers a player a reward after the completion of repetive (or precieved repetive) steps.
T- Themepark: A system of story driven content that follows a defined direction, common to all characters, with no deviation.
S-Sandbox: A open-ended game world that offers multiply systems that reward different achievement models.
L-Level: A system of progression that rises through advancement based on point or experinace that is earned.
S-Skill: A system of character defining abilities that make that character unique to that game world by choice.
IP-Intelectual Property: Any world that was adopted from an existing property and adapted to the gaming space.
OW-Original World: Game world absent of any outside content. This game has more freedom for development than being locked to the canon of a IP.
My definition may not match your understanding and I welcome your concepts to that space. When punch comes to shove the game developers want a profitable game. Fun has become secondary to achieveing the first goal. IP holders don't want to inivate or explore outside the know MMO mechanics. Just make a WOW clone of thier property and see how close thier "projections" come. Cynical? Yep, I am sick being told my desires for MMO's are dated, expensive and not fun.
Originally posted by Rasputin I agree strongly with your next points on the persistant world. I would just put the instancing as low as 5% (nothing more than starter area really), and the 5% should be non-important stuff to the gameplay or the world.
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Originally posted by Rasputin I agree strongly with your next points on the persistant world. I would just put the instancing as low as 5% (nothing more than starter area really), and the 5% should be non-important stuff to the gameplay or the world.
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Agreed. If you look at the original WoW at PvE endgame, the entire world was more or less irrelevant, and you only spent time inside the 5 (or so) instances.
The percentage of instancing would have to be defined upon it's importance to the game, time spent in it, a combination or something like that.
Don't worry too much about being diplomatic. World won't move anywhere without idealism - let the pragmatists worry about diplomacy
Originally posted by Rasputin I agree strongly with your next points on the persistant world. I would just put the instancing as low as 5% (nothing more than starter area really), and the 5% should be non-important stuff to the gameplay or the world.
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Agreed. If you look at the original WoW at PvE endgame, the entire world was more or less irrelevant, and you only spent time inside the 5 (or so) instances.
The percentage of instancing would have to be defined upon it's importance to the game, time spent in it, a combination or something like that.
Don't worry too much about being diplomatic. World won't move anywhere without idealism - let the pragmatists worry about diplomacy
Well we seem to be in agreement.
Now...how do we get ourselves appointed as the official Czars in charge of categorizing online games? Hmm, you call the president and I'll start a petition!
Comments
It was a nice read till I got to the same old SWTOR is a single player/co-op game bull. Also I'd love to see the info. on this player lobby that people have been talking about in SWTOR. Don't know how MMORPG.com expects forum posters to follow guidelines when their writers can't color inside the lines either. If this was included in the SWTOR forum then the thread would be closed and this would be the last post:
Please discuss this topic in the designated thread: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/265150/Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic-as-an-MMOG.html
While I enjoyed your article I think there is a more succinct answer. Those games that are very heavily instanced are not MMORPGS, they are MORPGs. (Massive Multiplayer Online - Massive). This site should just add a rating for mass. small, medium, large, MASSIVE!. or Tall, Grande, Vinte, Massive!
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between zones and instances. EQ had no instances at all untill the Lost Dungeons of Norrath expansion and that was..um, four or five years after release or something like that.
Yeah sorry I misspoke when I wrote that. It was late. I was trying to comment on the seamless part of the post I quoted.
Article was nice to read, but one thing needs to be correction.
Article seem to mix multiplayer online games and massive multiplayer online games. Yes, many new game design seem to go more direction of multiplayer online game. How ever, MOG's and MMOG's are two very different genre. MMO is where huge amount of players can do actions togather in online so that they can see others actions. Multiplayer online game is just game where group of players play togather.
In MMO's there is possibility that server population create community, as doing togather something as community. Not just as group of player playing togather. Multiplayer online games are just games where you can play with frieds. That is the difference. Now because some player may think that MMO's feel like the multiplayer game, doens't mean they are. So, are MMO's going to direction of MOG's? Yes and no. MMO's are still MMO's, but some people seem to think MMO(RP)G's are same as MOG's. They are mistaken, because they don't understand the difference.
MMORPG.COM has worst forum editor ever exists
that one, want to play good games, but when made "MMOs" just to get paid extra....well sux, the current 15$ standard way exceed the server costs, that those fees original were exuced by (dev cost covered by expansion/pack sales)
you see fast made crappy MMOs where only thing that matters is to get Phat lewt....used to be a joke that it was what ppl were after, now its reality....which well Id never pay 15$/month for.
sure always been great to get some nice item for your char, but it should never be about get the item. but how you got there...absolutely hate that lvling is just a timesink before "the real point" of the game is accesible....which is the pointless flat loot, that is incredible dull to get because you do the same instance over and over....instances can be fun the first few times, but is very short lived
this coming from the guy who said "why not a twilight mmo"
I'm tired of raiding for other people's loot.
I'm tired putting in the time for craft items for other people so they can be effective in a raid and not seeing anything for my troubles.
I'm tired of waiting 20+ minus for a healer or tank to get back from tucking in his 3 year old daughter for the 100th time in the middle of a raid between boss fights.
Frankly, I'm just tired of people's fucking bullshit when all I want to do is play a game surrounded by other people with RPG elements.
What mmorpg means for me is stats on gear. Items I can craft. Epic quest chains that interact you with Iconic figures and rich lore. The Idea that I can take Items I have got on my main and give it to one of my thousands of alts. A pure hobby where I can spend time to enrich my full account full of characters of different classes. Last but, not least. Mmorpg means to me that I can encounter epic PVP Combat at any time or place. This is what makes a mmorpg a mmorpg to me.
Why I think companies like EA/Dice understand what players like me are after is because, there own developers fully interact with there player base on the forms and never belittle creative thinking and debate or talk down to those serious hardcores that look at the game with years of knowledge while gaming. Blizzard on the other hand even though when I did play WoW and when I did enjoy it. 80% of the time when it came to debate they acted like that parent figure looking down on you as if you were directly trying to kill there child with fire and piss on the ashes. Well that's the feeling I got even though quite a few of my ideas have been integrated into Warcraft (Call me delusional. I could give a @#$%).
A perfect example of this is the Dev know as HATE that is part of the Battlefield Heroes team. This guy knows what's going on. He collects player data. Interacts with players and really makes you feel like what you post hold some meaning if you are creative and are not scared to use reason and logic instead of arguements such as "You retard noob luls".
People like him are going to understand that the player loves elements from mmoprgs but, at the same time he understands that no one wants to work for others for nothing but, a simple act of faith you place yourself in other player's hands and pray they run you through next to get what you are after for your character.
FPS Developers understand that people enjoy 40% interaction with players. (Clan, Squads and league boards) and 60% of the time as a Lone wolf.
In short. Companies like Dice are heading in a new direction and one I have been waiting nearly 5 year or more for a company to take. Use RPG elements and get the MMO factior into the equation but, have the game set so, the player is sitting in the driver's seat. Not the game running on auto pilot and forcing the hand of that player to go in that direction or otherwise you'll just crash and burn.
I cannot wait. It's taking so long, If there was anyway I could go into the future just so I could play SWTOR and give up that 1 year of my life. I'd do it in a heartbeat because, I know that what they are trying to sell. It's the very image of a mmorpg I've been waiting for, for the last 10 years. By just going on the data they have already. I can see that I'll love playing it.
The day of the mmorpg elitist jerk is near it's end and it will be the FPS hardcore veterans that will drown out their sound with yells of HOORAH !
"It's getting hard to know what MMORPG "means" nowadays"
It's not hard to understand what it means
It's just hard for stupid developers to stick to the "massive multiplayer" part of it.
These games will defiantly need a new name, they are not MMO’s or FPS. You cant just put a FPS online and call it a MMO because its online. Borderlands can only have 4 people in each game….yes I said four. This is a Lobby game with character development, but it is not a MMO.
I agree....
However an MMO goes a few steps forward.....they feature the basic concept of effecting other players that dont have anything to do with your actual play.....In games like Diablo 2 lord of destruction a player could turn in stones of jordan to summon a massive monster.....and this is broadcast to everyone playing.
It is true boarder lands has the computer or electronic game concept element of RPGs added to it......
But we all have to remeber that computer RPGs are called that becasue they where based onthe original RPGs...the Paper and Pencil and dice role playing games.
But i think scot is onto something......maybe alot of the newer games should be called LobbyGames or LobbyRPGs....
then eventualy we can start refering to them to the types of gameplay they offer.....For example calling something a Grinder...meaning the type of game where you kill and kill and thats about it to level...or RPG where you have lots of quests and missions with actual stories and play that requires you to do more then kill stuff to get drops.
Ppl usually miss concept of part RPG.
RPG or roll playing game means that you are playing a roll in some kind of story,and your roll can affect it.
Its not about lvls/gear its about you roll that could change or affect the way that story should go.
with MMO in prefix most of games are failing in concept of RPG.
You dont have any impact on story or things that happen around you if all you have done is dinged lvl 50 for example, or you have top gear in game.
today mmorpg tittle gets any game where you just go and grind 5kkk mobs for max lvl or do 5000 quests to get that max lvl.and thats fail cuz that quests you are doing means nothing to game it self,theres is no impact on any aspect of game except your personal lvl or gear.
SWOTR have chance to rly hit that RPG thing that many mmos miss.
For example take Mass Effect 2, your action(rolls) affecting story trough your conversations and decisions,while you are talking you can make story to go in several directions.
MMORPG isnt game which has inventory/lvls/gear/HP/MP/raid boss or something,it should be game where actions of group of ppl could affect world of that mmorpg permanently to every1 who plays it.
I place part of the responsibility on MMORPG.com.
You have alot of power, but you choose to not take on the responsibility, that this power gives you. MMORPG.com has consistently declined to define the very thing they stand for, and by continuously adding new games, that diverged more and more from the MMORPG's we knew - most prominently marked by your inclusion of distinctly non-MMO games like Guild Wars and DDO - you have helped rendering the term MMORPG completely irrelevant.
MMO (RPG or FPS is irrelevant) is the key to the term IMO. And you don't get a massive world or massive population with instancing. That is the first foundation of MMO, that you can work from in the coming necessary definition.
i dont mind diff game but this site should add the brand of the game ,is it a?
mmo,mo,corpg,rts,fps etc true there are a lot of them but it would clarify lot of missunderstanding
You give very good reply and some very good points about price tag these games have well i can asure you i wont pay 15 euro for game i play solo, plus indeed if companys become greedy and ask for every new little patch money like new weapon or mount or second character or whatever i refuse to pay when i already pay 15bucks.
And your also right about defenition about witch game can call himself a mmo and witch one cannot.
People can not spent more as they have but all companys at moment including solo games try everything to get more DLC OR ITEMS SHOPS.
In long run its posible that people stay at one game becouse they spent to much money already on game by buying items in itemshop or buy less solo games becouse with 60 euro and all the DLC they wont buy same amount of games they did before the DLC become commen use these days.
I say item shops and DLC is short term it wont last long people dont suddenly buy way more stuff for same game and realise hey i can't buy music cd's or cloth or mobile phone becouse i spent it all on this bloody game.
Im not happy btw how Bioware direction go it smells GREED for solo and mmo.
Also look at 2K with bioshock they gonne aggresively appraoch customers with DLC and bethesda ask 20euros for small new content tthis aint a good development at all i say we start LOSING it for true gamers.
They think this is answer to piracy?
It will hit them back hard mark my words people are not as dumb as they think.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
I agree about the instancing part but I don't know how much I would blame this site. They don't design the games after all and most of the games whose mmorpg status is questionable are still potentially of interest to the people who come here so you can't really blame them for listing them. I just wish we (and this site) could categorize games a little more clearly.
The big problem is in the definition of what constitutes a mmorpg. I would say that the most fundamental requirement to be a mmorpg is that it is a game in which thousands of players share the same game world. The SAME world, not split off into instances but one persistant world.
I mean, that was the whole idea behind mmorpgs in the first place. The idea was to create game worlds which thousands of people would play in together. All one world which everyone would share. That was THE thing which differentiated mmorpgs from single player or mere multiplayer games.
This doesn't have anything to do with how much solo play or grouping there is. It has nothing to do with the nature of the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether it is level based or skill based, twitchy or not twitchy, themepark or sandbox. This is simply the most fundamental idea on which mmorpgs were created; which was the idea of putting thousands of people in the SAME PERSISTANT WORLD. A shared play-space.
Some people don't like sharing their play-space with others and that's fine. But we need to make a distinction between games which adhere to that most fundamental original concept and those which don't. If we're going to keep calling the games which don't adhere to it "mmorpgs" then maybe we need a new term for those games which do. Maybe "persistant world" games?
And yes, I know that this would require drawing an arbitrary line in the sand somewhere regarding how much instancing a game can have and still fit into that category. I suppose I would say that if more than 50% of the gameplay takes place in instances then it is NOT a persistant world game. At least not sufficiently so to be put in that category. Honestly I'd like to put that percentage lower but I'm trying to be halfway flexible.
Edit: typed "higher" where I should have typed "lower" so changed it.
poster 67 !the game maker have been trying to blur the line a lot so that some game arent mmo at all but consider themselves an mmo.so i wonder like the op! will all the game be branded mmo and player will end up leaving all mmo and go play console
game instead (i would not be surprised at all if it turned out like this)or gamer will only play f2p game they like and let the rest
play a asian inspection.
i dont mind diff game but this site should add the brand of the game ,is it a?
mmo,mo,corpg,rts,fps etc true there are a lot of them but it would clarify lot of missunderstanding
I agree completely with this post.
they perpetuate the misconception.
Especially with ads up and down with dragon age on their site.
although I'm expressing an opinion so I might get banned or warned at 3am for it.
putting thousand of players in one world is ok and you can kill it MMO,but if there is no roll to be played in that world then there is no point to add RPG,just add G then.
Basic idea of RPG element is that your action make impact on game world(that is that you are playing roll in that change).
Running around and doing /wave,/smile,/handshake etc. doesnt mean it RP its acting.With this emotions you are not playing any roll in game world change,you are acting in front of other player.
there is difference between act and roll play,but ppl today made it same and just added MMO in front of it with 'RP" servers....
80% of gamers dont know right meaning of RPG,to them RPG is when you have inventory to open,gain lvl,get gear and grind monsters/finish hundreds of meaningless quests...
This is where I respectfully disagree. For me the "Roll" philosophy in Mmorpg is and should only be defined by what class you are playing.
Warriors for example are generally the tank in most mmorpgs but, then you can find also Paladins or Knights also filling this roll.
The main fail point in most Mmorpgs was the power 1 player can have over a group of people. For most of those hardcore Rper they are fine with this. However the common player in general hates being subjected to these rules.
If you look at history all mmorpgs have failed regarding this point and only Blizzard methods of this form of control has prevailed to the point where the community numbers are in the millions but, I don't think it's because of how 1 player effects another player and the world around him.
Now I talk a lot of shit about Wow and maybe because, I have 6 80s and 3 70s with all max professions and how I know that game better from the in side out then most mmorpgs. The player interaction is pretty good. You hook up with people to either raid or pvp with. However these is the only form and way of progression. Where as now crafting progression is stricky based off how much time that player wants to put into it where before it came down too what raid you could get into to get mats and patterns to craft decent items.
Wow's 2 biggest failed aspects is
1) The loot system is pretty damn greedy. You hope that the guy with Master loot powers sends your time you have been raiding for. for the last 2 months sends it to your bag. This is just too much power a player has over 1 person in a video game and it produces more rage then actual enjoyment to players.
2) Top progression Pvp requires a group of 3 or more. The great thing about Pvp is that you can jump in at anytime or be effected by Pvp regardless if you wish it or not. The progression in pvp is only the frosting on the cake. The real bread and butter is the different ways a player can go about to Pvp.
3) Instant lockout. Now I understand why they are in place to stop farmers form totally ruining the enjoyment of both the Raid and the AH and they way players could just abuse the AH but, really what's the difference between seeing 1 void crystal on the AH or millions ? Greed really and that's all there is too it. I don't want to spend months on 1 instants with 1 character while I have 5 others I want to progress though that same instance. The amount of time it takes for new content is just coming out at a light speed rate and then the expansion is over before you even get your main class in every Best in slot gear.
For me in the end Mmorpg means a hobby not a 18 hour shift job that wow turned into for me. This is probably why I now no longer play it. I came to the realization that no matter how much I raided or how much time I put in. As soon as I got to the best and top cutting edge progression for that 1 class in either Pve or PVP. I had about a week left to really enjoy my rewards from hard work put in before those items hit the bottom of the food chain.
This is were I believe Mmorpgs are failing and this is where i see a style of a game rise from the ashes and remove the part I hate most about mmorpgs. The power 1 player can have over my game play experience.
"doesnt mean it RP its acting"
lol
those are the same things guy.
role playing IS acting.
your playing a role. ie. acting? Have you ever watched a movie in your life?
I'm stunned someone could say something so devoid of intelligence.
I agree about the instancing part but I don't know how much I would blame this site. They don't design the games after all and most of the games whose mmorpg status is questionable are still potentially of interest to the people who come here so you can't really blame them for listing them. I just wish we (and this site) could categorize games a little more clearly.
The big problem is in the definition of what constitutes a mmorpg. I would say that the most fundamental requirement to be a mmorpg is that it is a game in which thousands of players share the same game world. The SAME world, not split off into instances but one persistant world.
I mean, that was the whole idea behind mmorpgs in the first place. The idea was to create game worlds which thousands of people would play in together. All one world which everyone would share. That was THE thing which differentiated mmorpgs from single player or mere multiplayer games.
This doesn't have anything to do with how much solo play or grouping there is. It has nothing to do with the nature of the endgame. It has nothing to do with whether it is level based or skill based, twitchy or not twitchy, themepark or sandbox. This is simply the most fundamental idea on which mmorpgs were created; which was the idea of putting thousands of people in the SAME PERSISTANT WORLD. A shared play-space.
Some people don't like sharing their play-space with others and that's fine. But we need to make a distinction between games which adhere to that most fundamental original concept and those which don't. If we're going to keep calling the games which don't adhere to it "mmorpgs" then maybe we need a new term for those games which do. Maybe "persistant world" games?
And yes, I know that this would require drawing an arbitrary line in the sand somewhere regarding how much instancing a game can have and still fit into that category. I suppose I would say that if more than 50% of the gameplay takes place in instances then it is NOT a persistant world game. At least not sufficiently so to be put in that category. Honestly I'd like to put that percentage higher but I'm trying to be halfway flexible.
True, they don't design games, but they have chosen to focus on MMO's, and as such, they should have a definition, so they know what they are focusing on. Some of the games that are included, are as relevant to MMO as would be music or movies.
I agree strongly with your next points on the persistant world. I would just put the instancing as low as 5% (nothing more than starter area really), and the 5% should be non-important stuff to the gameplay or the world.
This is old territory but valid here. Lets define the terms. MMORPG.
M- Massive: This defined how large your game space should be to handle the number of players, interest, and scope.
M- Multiplayer: This ment more than one player to interact in the Massive space. This ment there should be operations that required more than one player. This should not be limited to just endgame content but features throughout the progression (if there is a progression).
O- Online: The entire game was taking place in a online envirement that used the feature as an intrigual part. Why have it if you don't use it?
RPG- Role-playing Game: From the early '70s to today this has been experiance in many forms and fashions from PnP table top to single player story based computer games. It's main feature is telling a story (whether short or long) that impacted the player.
Now many of these terms are defined very open ended. What game managers are trying to do is destill these features to thier most profitable focus while trying to make a fun experiance. Social and legal issue not withstanding. Here are some terms that can further focus the understanding of what the game is:
P- Perpetual: A consistant player instance that can contain the whole of that games server population.
I- Instance: A seperate room outside a Perpetual world play space that focues or isolates a give players experiance for that one story.
G- Grinder: A system of achievement that offers a player a reward after the completion of repetive (or precieved repetive) steps.
T- Themepark: A system of story driven content that follows a defined direction, common to all characters, with no deviation.
S- Sandbox: A open-ended game world that offers multiply systems that reward different achievement models.
L- Level: A system of progression that rises through advancement based on point or experinace that is earned.
S- Skill: A system of character defining abilities that make that character unique to that game world by choice.
IP- Intelectual Property: Any world that was adopted from an existing property and adapted to the gaming space.
OW- Original World: Game world absent of any outside content. This game has more freedom for development than being locked to the canon of a IP.
My definition may not match your understanding and I welcome your concepts to that space. When punch comes to shove the game developers want a profitable game. Fun has become secondary to achieveing the first goal. IP holders don't want to inivate or explore outside the know MMO mechanics. Just make a WOW clone of thier property and see how close thier "projections" come. Cynical? Yep, I am sick being told my desires for MMO's are dated, expensive and not fun.
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Agreed. If you look at the original WoW at PvE endgame, the entire world was more or less irrelevant, and you only spent time inside the 5 (or so) instances.
The percentage of instancing would have to be defined upon it's importance to the game, time spent in it, a combination or something like that.
Don't worry too much about being diplomatic. World won't move anywhere without idealism - let the pragmatists worry about diplomacy
Yeah, I agree with you about that. Heck, I'd prefer if there was no instancing at all. I was just trying to be somewhat diplomatic. If we had to draw the line somewhere between persistant world games and games which don't qualify as persistant worlds how many others would argee that the line should be drawn at 0 to 5 % instanced?
But then, as you touched on when you said the instancing should be non-important stuff, you also have to look at tricky issues like: How do you classify a game if only 5% of the content is instanced but the players spend 95% of their time in those instances? In that case I would say that the persistant part of the game is mostly irrelevant and so once again it should not be classed as a persistant world game.
Agreed. If you look at the original WoW at PvE endgame, the entire world was more or less irrelevant, and you only spent time inside the 5 (or so) instances.
The percentage of instancing would have to be defined upon it's importance to the game, time spent in it, a combination or something like that.
Don't worry too much about being diplomatic. World won't move anywhere without idealism - let the pragmatists worry about diplomacy
Well we seem to be in agreement.
Now...how do we get ourselves appointed as the official Czars in charge of categorizing online games? Hmm, you call the president and I'll start a petition!