Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
According to MMORPGs own article STO is not an MMO
AmonSul
Member Posts: 80
An excerpt from: www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/102009/4897_Definition-Insanity-What-is-an-MMO
"I’m not advocating PacMan for the list here, but if a game calls itself an MMO and has core MMO elements (progression, persistence, and online common areas) why can’t people look at it for what it is, instead of what it isn’t?
Take Global Agenda. The core of that game is instanced FPS style PvP. Yes, that caps out at no larger than 24 in a single instance (12 vs. 12) right now. Does that matter? You could argue we could toss Battlefield in, sure, but that’s a non-starter for a few reasons: Battlefield may have some progression (weapon unlocks), but not the extent of character progression in GA; BF has absolutely no persistence to the encounters and what they mean for the larger world; and BF has no common areas for people to explore."
So core elements are: Progression AND Peristence AND online common areas.
Their reason why Battlefield is not an MMO:
Battlefield has no, or little, progression (STO has progression)
Battlefield has no persistence to the encounters and what they mean for the larger world. (STO is the same, encounters are instanced and means nothing for the larger world.)
Battlefield has no common areas for people to explore (STO has no common areas for people to explore either, they are all instanced)
So since this is an AND operation (not OR) STO should not be considered an MMO because it fails atleast one core component. Remove it pls.
Comments
So then STO and all games like it should not be listed on MMORPG! Come on MMORPG man up! If STO and all games like it are not MMORPGs stop covering them! What's wrong? Don't want to bite the hand that feeds you?
OR
This is simiply one person's narrow idea of what a mass online role playing game is based on the type of game they want to play not on the different types of MMORPG which exist.
At least now we know why there is such a strong bias against STO here.
One could argue, on many levels, why a game is or is not an MMORPG. What I found interesting here is that their own article seemed to suggest that STO should not be listed here.
*signs upcoming petition to remove STO, GW, GW2, AOC <and who knows what else I forgot> to be removed as MMORPG from this site*
To me it doesnt really matter, I mean if you went to a site that was called "HeavyMetal.com" and they had a section dedicated to "Death Metal" I wouldnt think twice about it. Even though the people who generally listen to old school Heavy metal and those that listen to Death metal are far apart, its just another demographic to hit.
No reason this site cant have ORPG's or even CORPG's, its all in the same spectrum. To me I would rather play APB (which people dont consider an MMO) than 99% of the other "Real" MMO's on this site.
hm mmo=massive multiplayer online i guess if you can see like 500 ppl at one place that fits concept of mmo word,so explain why GW or STO is not mmo?
and rpg is something else,many mmos you cant call mmorpgs but still you can call them mmog simple as that.
AoC has common areas to explore, have keeps which are fought over and has progression. So according to their own litmus test it is an MMO and should be listed there.
GW I dont know, haven't played it.
Didn't you just answer your own question? In STO you cannot see 500 ppl at once place because each instance holds a maximum amount of 50 people. That includes starbases and other social gathering hubs as well as the sector map. There is not one single place in STO that is not instanced and common for all people. Not that I am aware of anyway.
Hey, I am just pointing out that with their own way of thinking why Battlefield should not be listed here, STO should not be either.
Hey, I am just pointing out that with their own way of thinking why Battlefield should not be listed here, STO should not be either.
Well, it will be a dead game anyway so no point in arguing about it
Hey, I am just pointing out that with their own way of thinking why Battlefield should not be listed here, STO should not be either.
Well, it will be a dead game anyway so no point in arguing about it
Agreed, lets talk about something else more interesting, this topic bores me. Im going to go start a thread on OT about Rocko's Modern Life and other old school nickelodeon shows. See you guys there.
mate i said 500 just as an example,not every game can handle same amount of ppl and not every game is designed to be same as other game.
when u say massive multiplayer that means that many ppl can play the game on same server in same time and meet each other around and interact with world.
STO has basically that concept,so it can be called mmo.
If you look at the definition above, AOC is not an MMORPG. The whole game is instanced with a maximum of 50 players per instance. Actually, AOC is much like STO.
I think with the above definition, the author means that there's one whole world without any instances where players can meet, regardless if that world is divided into zones. Some examples:
With that, I already wondered why MMORPG.com went on a big expansion of their gamelist at the end of Q1 2009. I looked at some of the added games then and wondered if some of them were really MMORPGs. There are even some MMOFPS...
Yeah but if they removed STO and any other game that doesnt fit your extremely specific, rigid and narrow vision of what an mmo MUST be then you would not be able to moan about it on this website. By covering such games on this website they effectively fill a void in your life. Surely you should be greatful to them for that right?
So how does your rigid system of 3 categories work exactly? Do games have to pass all of them to be allowed on the website or can they get by with only passing two of them? WoW and a large number of other similar mmos fail on the "persistence" category as nothing you do can ever have any lasting persistent effect on anything. You cant even effect other players as your avatars walk through each other as though they dont exist. Does this mean WoW and almost all of the other similar mmos should be removed? In contrast Global Agenda passes all three of these criteria. It has progression in the form of character advancement, persistence in the way that your actions can have a lasting impact on the world map in AvA which impacts what other players can see and do, and it also has a common online area where loads of people can hang out. So......WoW must go and Global Agenda gets to stay.
Hmmm your objection is very interesting indeed and I'm sure the staff at mmorpg.com will be deeply moved by your extremely important viewpoint........or maybe you're just full of shit.
Of course it does. You gain loot & currency via encounters. That loot & currency can (and does) influence the global in-game economy, which is persistent.
The REAL question: Why have we wasted so much effort argueing semantics?
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
Hm.
MMORPG
Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game.
It's massive. Not compared to games like WoW and Lotro, SWG, but its still big.
Yep, multiplayer, it's there.
Well, considering when my internet crashes it doesn't work, Im going to put two and two together and say it's an online game.
Roleplaying. Well, I'm playing the role of a captain. So yes. Not to mention the Roleplaying group I created... but thats me creating content. (Different battle there arguement wise.)
Yes it's a game, I got it off steam, a game seller.
So yes it is an MMO. Just because it doesnt fit your vision of a 'persistant game world which continues while your away.' So I log off, and come back on, and my friends who were lieutenants are no commanders? I think it does in some senses.
Meh it's all opinion anyway. Me? I think they should divide the site into catagories. MMOG's and MMORPG's. and MMORPGWPW
Massive multiplayer online games with persistant worlds..
Longing for Skyrim, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3
The OP is using the site's definition of an mmorpg (rightly or wrongly). You're using your own definition (rightly or wrongly).
They're not the same definition so when you say "so it can be called mmo" you're completely ignoring the OP's argument.
Pretty much how I feel. The only differences for me is I bought it online and recieved it in the mail before installing it. There are plenty of people enjoying the ability to role play a captain on a starship that they got to customize and name.
I also agree with the poster a ways up that said this arguing over semantics is ridiculous.
I'm also curious why this type of conversation is allowed here but not in the TOR section? Over there you have a thread stickied on that question and aren't allowed to bring it up multiple times, but here we have people posting the same thread topic every week. Why the double standard?
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
The discussion about GW should be done. ArenaNet's own admission states they are not an MMO. They labeled themselves as something different.
I agree that if there is no base instance(world) then the game has flaws/lacks MMO feel. But basically MMORPG is what people call anything that has some level of persistance and isnt a shooter.
Hell, Evony is listed on this site.
As is League of Legends. LoL isn't even close to an MMO. They are labeling themselves as a MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena). The level of persistance in LoL is just a mastery(talent) tree and runes that modify an avatar you dont keep from battle to battle.
I'd rather this site didn't change thier name but did a better job defining game types.
In your words MMORPG sounds like a quality seal...
Like 'Gaming industrie's finest games guaranteed fun'-badge.
Though there are probably as many crap MMORPGs as non-MMORPGs, so who cares?
I'm not saying STO isn't an MMO, in my opinion it has enough massive content and continuity to be one. Still it doesn't matter at all because MMO doesn't equal fun or quality or anything else...
M
No mmo has world-changing encounters with the possible exception of Wurm (or maybe EVE's economy). The only thing that ever changes in most mmo's are the characters; the worlds remain dull and lifeless backdrops for dull and lifeless quest-giving npc's, everything will be exactly the same on your hundredth play-through as it was on your first.
The mmo's that claim to have world-changing features are all variations on some kind of siege mechanic, which isn't really world-changing because all that happens is a different set of people control the same static piece of land/instance/resource/whatever. I'm sure the Darkfall fans will jump in and shout 'but we have politics, that changes the world.' Well, no it doesn't. The fact remains that all there is to do is kill the same people over and over, or siege the same towns over and over. Nothing ever really changes except the names of the people.
You can't alter the landscape, grow crops, or truly affect the world in any mainstream mmo; STO is just another in a long line of games instead of worlds.
...
Even if mmorpg.com created a zillion different categories to accurately define every mmo down the most minute detail (which is completely unnecessary anyway as most normal people dont get upset about it), people like the OP would simply argue with and complain about their decisions anyway.
Besides who cares what category a game gets put into? Anyone with half a brain should be quite capable of reading up on a game and seeing what it involves. Asking to have games removed from the site simply limits everyones chances of finding out about new games.
I think some people just are scared of or don't like instanced mmo games. However, I actually like STO, and think it a blast. Maybe some just need to re-think their definitions.
My definition? My viewpoint? The whole point of this post is that it is not mine but MMORPG.COM themselves since it is their article and not mine.
As far as I know, WoW does have common areas to explore and have contests over persistant zones which affects the gaming world (not sure about the latter, some WoW fan needs to fill that in). STO however fulfills neither of those two.
EDIT: Remember, as per their definition, it is enough for guilds/factions being able to fight for the control of something like a base/castle for it to be considered having an impact on the world. I believe that is possible in WoW and almost all MMORPGs, including LOTRO. STO in contrast has nothing to fight over.
Even if mmorpg.com created a zillion different categories to accurately define every mmo down the most minute detail (which is completely unnecessary anyway as most normal people dont get upset about it), people like the OP would simply argue with and complain about their decisions anyway.
Besides who cares what category a game gets put into? Anyone with half a brain should be quite capable of reading up on a game and seeing what it involves. Asking to have games removed from the site simply limits everyones chances of finding out about new games.
Hey, call me naive but when I got to a site which are about RTS I dont expect to see FPS or RPGs listed there.
What is the problem here is that Cryptic call STO an MMO yet they are missing the core aspects for what MMORPG.COM uses to classify a game as an MMO. That is even evident in the review this site did when the author questioned if this game really can be called an MMO (without a conclusion I may add).