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.
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
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.
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
Not my definition so I cant answer that. But Dana answers it in the followup posts below:
"The ability to capture territory, have guild driven wars, etc. That, combined with graphical common areas (IE: You could just "run into someone") is where we tend to draw the line."
So it needs some ability to capture territory (STO has none) and a graphical common area (GW has but not STO, its instanced).
Gheez guys who the heck cares!!! The game has instances as does even EQ2 or most other MMo's, just a numbers game as to how many can play in a zone together. If playing in a instant with only 50 people bother you, go find a game that allows more! After playing games like DAoC that allow over 100 players per zone to interact together in a amassive lag fest, I'll take a more reasonable number so the game can still function smoothly. I doubt there would be very many occasions in Star Trek that more than 50 ships would come together to battle it out anyways. I certainly haven't felt there was a lack of people on the Star bases i've visited so even that doesn't bother me any. They seem to fare about the same as any good city in most MMo's I've played before, but if the number 50 doesn't float your boat put a suggestion in for Cryptic to increase that number. I really don't think it would be that hard for them to do if that bothered enough people, especially at Star bases.
The REAL question: Why have we wasted so much effort argueing semantics?
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
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.
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
Not my definition so I cant answer that. But Dana answers it in the followup posts below:
"The ability to capture territory, have guild driven wars, etc. That, combined with graphical common areas (IE: You could just "run into someone") is where we tend to draw the line."
So it needs some ability to capture territory (STO has none) and a graphical common area (GW has but not STO, its instanced).
Can someones character from X server capture territory on Y server?
From my knowledge only one game renders that point moot.
EVE is the only MMO in existence.
Edit, to acknowledge that DF and FE may also fit this mold.
The REAL question: Why have we wasted so much effort argueing semantics?
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
Excellent post and something I didn't even think about.
By taking the semantics further like the haters of this game do on such as consistent basis, I guess World of Warcraft has never been an MMO because you can't group across servers. I guess SWG even in the so-called good ole days wasn't a true MMO because players on Corbantis couldn't play with players on Bria. I guess that SWG was also not a more true MMO until Restuss was invented and real world events were actually changed by player's actions.
All these arguments are sill but then again so is the point of this thread.
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.
IMO, AoC is even further from a MMO than STO, since not only are people separated into servers, they are separated by zones, and then further separated by instances of those zones.
Kind of the worst of all worlds. Not everyone playing the game can interact with each other, yet there are several shards of each zone complete with loading screens so you're not even seeing the full "reality" of the server, and most importantly, server population decline is STILL an issue.
anyway sto is built more like guild wars where the devs i belive said it wasnt a mmo.
basic info about mmo is that needs a large player base that plays together or against each other on at least one persistent world, doesnt mean you should be able to play server vs server.
not 10vs10 or 40vs40. or 10 vs ai or 40 vs ai
Of course people can have personal feeling what is but common knowledge is what i said previous.
eh what are you talking about ? anyway sto is built more like guild wars where the devs i belive said it wasnt a mmo. basic info about mmo is that needs a large player base that plays together or against each other on at least one persistent world, doesnt mean you should be able to play server vs server. not 10vs10 or 40vs40. or 10 vs ai or 40 vs ai Of course people can have personal feeling what is but common knowledge is what i said previous.
Again, more semantic nonsense. I call it a server, you call it a world. Either way, not every player in the game can interact with every other player. In STO, you can. Does this make STO more of a MMO than a server/"world" based MMO?
If STO somehow manages to scrounge up 500,000 players, that means 500,000 players can interact with each other. Your average server/"world" based game averages about 20,000 per server/"world". Does that make STO more of a MMO than such a game?
My point is, the STO hate is obvious as all the shortcomings of the design are highlighted here without any of the just as obvious advantages. To point to one thing it doesn't do compared to another MMO while ignoring the things it DOES do that others can't makes for an absurd argument.
Honestly, it's like slicing bread horizontally and claiming it isn't bread, anymore.
The REAL question: Why have we wasted so much effort argueing semantics?
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
Hmm....
Progression: Well, there is character progression within STO. Characters definitely do advance through levels and onto new areas every so many levels. So..... Check.
Persistence: Well, the main maps are the same. There is a growing economy with the auction house. There is instancing of maps, however that is a subjective item (some people like it and some do not). However, the maps are pretty much the same each time that the specific area is visited. So...... Check.
Online Common Areas: Well, there are areas where players can congregate and talk. Mainly main stations such as Earth base and DS9 (there's more, but I just listed a couple). People can congregate, talk, send mail, bank, and use the exchange (auction house). So....... Check.
Yup. Based on Dana's criteria for a MMORPG, STO is a MMORPG. Case closed.
Bingo. Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else. Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS? In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them? You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
I agree. Why this sort of nonsense is permitted here but not in the TOR section is a mystery to me.
Bingo. Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else. Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS? In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them? You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
I agree. Why this sort of nonsense is permitted here but not in the TOR section is a mystery to me.
Permitted? Hell, it's encouraged... the other thread exactly like this one was actually stickied until I cussed out the Managing Editor about it.
Yeah, it's not an MMO, but like it was mentioned earlier "who cares it's gonna be dead in 6 months".
Now, see... you think your being cute here, but actually that's exactly my point. Hell it might be dead in 6 months, I don't know. I hope not, but who knows? My point is is that arguing over how to label the game is just pointless... who cares? If Cryptic themselves where to come to declare that this game is not in fact a "true MMORPG" (as if that wasn't mostly subjective) what diffrance would it make?
What you people dont seem to get is that this is not just about semantics. STO is charging a monthly fee for what is essentially not an MMO, or rather lacks core elements of MMOs like persistence and being able to interact with alot of people. The game could might as well be a single player game, with multiplayer tacked on and it would make no difference.
It is an embarrasment to the genre. An embarrasment to Star Trek and an embarrasment just general for being such a shallow game without an ounce of innovation. It is a huge step backwards when it comes to MMOs and should be treated as such.
So ask yourself, what is it this game does, that games like Guild Wars does not, which warrants a monthly fee?
What you people dont seem to get is that this is not just about semantics. STO is charging a monthly fee for what is essentially not an MMO, or rather lacks core elements of MMOs like persistence and being able to interact with alot of people. The game could might as well be a single player game, with multiplayer tacked on and it would make no difference. False. It is an embarrasment to the genre. An embarrasment to Star Trek and an embarrasment just general for being such a shallow game without an ounce of innovation. It is a huge step backwards when it comes to MMOs and should be treated as such. Yay sensationalism. Completely false. So ask yourself, what is it this game does, that games like Guild Wars does not, which warrants a monthly fee? Infinitely better UI and controls, persistent game world, and MUCH better ability in customization of character and character progression just to name a few.
STO is called by Cryptic team an MMO because of the 15$ per month people feed them with. That's all. I could make you pay 15$ a month to play a FPS i would be developping and call it an MMO as much as i want! =D
What you people dont seem to get is that this is not just about semantics. STO is charging a monthly fee for what is essentially not an MMO, or rather lacks core elements of MMOs like persistence and being able to interact with alot of people. The game could might as well be a single player game, with multiplayer tacked on and it would make no difference. It is an embarrasment to the genre. An embarrasment to Star Trek and an embarrasment just general for being such a shallow game without an ounce of innovation. It is a huge step backwards when it comes to MMOs and should be treated as such. So ask yourself, what is it this game does, that games like Guild Wars does not, which warrants a monthly fee?
But being an MMO or not is not the sole determinate for charging a monthly fee, or for people choosing to pay one. They charge a monthly fee to access an online gaming service. Whether or not you want to call STO and MMORPG is irrelevent, whatever it is, it is still entirely dependant on server-based online infrastructure... Cryptic charges $15 a month for that service and you either choose to pay for it or not.
And sorry, but Guild Wars is irrelevent... just because they are both heavily instanced does not mean they are otherwise anything alike, and that single factor doesn't dictate a particular revenue structure.
And no, this doesn't mean that charging $15 for a heavily instanced game might not be a deal breaker for you.... but your implying you opinion on the matter is a stone chiseled law that must be obeyed and therefore noone has the right to disagree with you. Sorry but that's just nonsence.
I'd call STO a Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, its in the category of AoC and GW. While there are a ton of people on that server you cannot interact with all those people at once. I say if you can't interact with the majority of the server population at once most of the time it is not Massive by any means. Massive shouldn't mean the total of players playing on a server.
IDK now many people you can exactly interact with in STO and AoC, people said its 50 and if that is true, that is not even Massive. But lets just make up a little example that even holds more people, this is all hypothetical mind you. Lets say AoC's game world can hold 3000 people, each zone has 6 copies or channels. The game server is full and there is a party going on and everyone is going to that zone. You get there and you are interacting with 500 people at once, now that seems massive compared to how many people you interact with a FPS. But if you think about it your only able to interact with 1/6 of the total player population and to me that really isn't all that massive.
STO is called by Cryptic team an MMO because of the 15$ per month people feed them with. That's all. I could make you pay 15$ a month to play a FPS i would be developping and call it an MMO as much as i want! =D
Newsflash from seven years ago: Someone did exactly that it's called Planetside.
*signs upcoming petition to remove STO, GW, GW2, AOC <and who knows what else I forgot> to be removed as MMORPG from this site*
You forgot CrimeCraft, and....I'm not sure why AoC is in there, but then...I've never played it (unless you count 1 day worth of trial, and even I don't count that), so I wouldn't know.
Comments
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
...
THIS
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
Not my definition so I cant answer that. But Dana answers it in the followup posts below:
"The ability to capture territory, have guild driven wars, etc. That, combined with graphical common areas (IE: You could just "run into someone") is where we tend to draw the line."
So it needs some ability to capture territory (STO has none) and a graphical common area (GW has but not STO, its instanced).
Gheez guys who the heck cares!!! The game has instances as does even EQ2 or most other MMo's, just a numbers game as to how many can play in a zone together. If playing in a instant with only 50 people bother you, go find a game that allows more! After playing games like DAoC that allow over 100 players per zone to interact together in a amassive lag fest, I'll take a more reasonable number so the game can still function smoothly. I doubt there would be very many occasions in Star Trek that more than 50 ships would come together to battle it out anyways. I certainly haven't felt there was a lack of people on the Star bases i've visited so even that doesn't bother me any. They seem to fare about the same as any good city in most MMo's I've played before, but if the number 50 doesn't float your boat put a suggestion in for Cryptic to increase that number. I really don't think it would be that hard for them to do if that bothered enough people, especially at Star bases.
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
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.
How do the contests over WoW's persistent zones affect the gaming world? I'm not saying they don't, I'm just curious. To me, territory control in mmo's is a marketing bullet point and utlimately rather meaningless and repetitve. It may raise your vendor prices a little bit if you're of the losing faction, but is that really what is considered world-changing in these games?
Not my definition so I cant answer that. But Dana answers it in the followup posts below:
"The ability to capture territory, have guild driven wars, etc. That, combined with graphical common areas (IE: You could just "run into someone") is where we tend to draw the line."
So it needs some ability to capture territory (STO has none) and a graphical common area (GW has but not STO, its instanced).
Can someones character from X server capture territory on Y server?
From my knowledge only one game renders that point moot.
EVE is the only MMO in existence.
Edit, to acknowledge that DF and FE may also fit this mold.
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
Excellent post and something I didn't even think about.
By taking the semantics further like the haters of this game do on such as consistent basis, I guess World of Warcraft has never been an MMO because you can't group across servers. I guess SWG even in the so-called good ole days wasn't a true MMO because players on Corbantis couldn't play with players on Bria. I guess that SWG was also not a more true MMO until Restuss was invented and real world events were actually changed by player's actions.
All these arguments are sill but then again so is the point of this thread.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
IMO, AoC is even further from a MMO than STO, since not only are people separated into servers, they are separated by zones, and then further separated by instances of those zones.
Kind of the worst of all worlds. Not everyone playing the game can interact with each other, yet there are several shards of each zone complete with loading screens so you're not even seeing the full "reality" of the server, and most importantly, server population decline is STILL an issue.
Reply to post #34
eh what are you talking about ?
anyway sto is built more like guild wars where the devs i belive said it wasnt a mmo.
basic info about mmo is that needs a large player base that plays together or against each other on at least one persistent world, doesnt mean you should be able to play server vs server.
not 10vs10 or 40vs40. or 10 vs ai or 40 vs ai
Of course people can have personal feeling what is but common knowledge is what i said previous.
-Semper ubi sub ubi!
always wear underwear
Again, more semantic nonsense. I call it a server, you call it a world. Either way, not every player in the game can interact with every other player. In STO, you can. Does this make STO more of a MMO than a server/"world" based MMO?
If STO somehow manages to scrounge up 500,000 players, that means 500,000 players can interact with each other. Your average server/"world" based game averages about 20,000 per server/"world". Does that make STO more of a MMO than such a game?
My point is, the STO hate is obvious as all the shortcomings of the design are highlighted here without any of the just as obvious advantages. To point to one thing it doesn't do compared to another MMO while ignoring the things it DOES do that others can't makes for an absurd argument.
Honestly, it's like slicing bread horizontally and claiming it isn't bread, anymore.
By the OPs argument, EQ shouldn't be listed here.
Encounters don't persist, you kill the mob, it comes back 2 minutes later.
You can't see 500 at once in a single zone.... the zones die.
Bingo.
Worse than that, why do people decide they hate a game because it doesn't have A, B, and C? Just play the game. If you like it, good. If not, go play something else.
Doom was one of the first big FPS's. You required keys from certain places to get to other places and levels. If a newer game doesn't have this, is it no longer a FPS?
In STO, I can buy gear through the Exchange from ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can email ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. I can group with ANYONE ELSE IN THE GAME. In most MMO's you can't do ANY of these things with players on other servers. Does this make STO more of a MMO than them?
You folks don't like STO. We get it. Move along.
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Hmm....
Yup. Based on Dana's criteria for a MMORPG, STO is a MMORPG. Case closed.
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
I agree. Why this sort of nonsense is permitted here but not in the TOR section is a mystery to me.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
QFMFE.
I'm not a fan of semantics games at all, there's nothing of importance that will come from such a discussion. Does labeling it as an MMO or not, make it a better game, or alter the experience what so ever? No
Looks like STO needs it's own "is it an MMO" thread. There's no need to clutter up these forums with such discussions it doesn't change anything about the game, or say anything about it.
I agree. Why this sort of nonsense is permitted here but not in the TOR section is a mystery to me.
Permitted? Hell, it's encouraged... the other thread exactly like this one was actually stickied until I cussed out the Managing Editor about it.
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
Now, see... you think your being cute here, but actually that's exactly my point. Hell it might be dead in 6 months, I don't know. I hope not, but who knows? My point is is that arguing over how to label the game is just pointless... who cares? If Cryptic themselves where to come to declare that this game is not in fact a "true MMORPG" (as if that wasn't mostly subjective) what diffrance would it make?
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
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/022010/5749_Why-We-Wont-DeList-STO.html
End of thread
What you people dont seem to get is that this is not just about semantics. STO is charging a monthly fee for what is essentially not an MMO, or rather lacks core elements of MMOs like persistence and being able to interact with alot of people. The game could might as well be a single player game, with multiplayer tacked on and it would make no difference.
It is an embarrasment to the genre. An embarrasment to Star Trek and an embarrasment just general for being such a shallow game without an ounce of innovation. It is a huge step backwards when it comes to MMOs and should be treated as such.
So ask yourself, what is it this game does, that games like Guild Wars does not, which warrants a monthly fee?
STO is called by Cryptic team an MMO because of the 15$ per month people feed them with. That's all. I could make you pay 15$ a month to play a FPS i would be developping and call it an MMO as much as i want! =D
But being an MMO or not is not the sole determinate for charging a monthly fee, or for people choosing to pay one. They charge a monthly fee to access an online gaming service. Whether or not you want to call STO and MMORPG is irrelevent, whatever it is, it is still entirely dependant on server-based online infrastructure... Cryptic charges $15 a month for that service and you either choose to pay for it or not.
And sorry, but Guild Wars is irrelevent... just because they are both heavily instanced does not mean they are otherwise anything alike, and that single factor doesn't dictate a particular revenue structure.
And no, this doesn't mean that charging $15 for a heavily instanced game might not be a deal breaker for you.... but your implying you opinion on the matter is a stone chiseled law that must be obeyed and therefore noone has the right to disagree with you. Sorry but that's just nonsence.
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
I'd call STO a Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, its in the category of AoC and GW. While there are a ton of people on that server you cannot interact with all those people at once. I say if you can't interact with the majority of the server population at once most of the time it is not Massive by any means. Massive shouldn't mean the total of players playing on a server.
IDK now many people you can exactly interact with in STO and AoC, people said its 50 and if that is true, that is not even Massive. But lets just make up a little example that even holds more people, this is all hypothetical mind you. Lets say AoC's game world can hold 3000 people, each zone has 6 copies or channels. The game server is full and there is a party going on and everyone is going to that zone. You get there and you are interacting with 500 people at once, now that seems massive compared to how many people you interact with a FPS. But if you think about it your only able to interact with 1/6 of the total player population and to me that really isn't all that massive.
Newsflash from seven years ago: Someone did exactly that it's called Planetside.
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
Anyway you guys could argue till the end of the universe about it, they will not remove STO from the list!
The End.
You forgot CrimeCraft, and....I'm not sure why AoC is in there, but then...I've never played it (unless you count 1 day worth of trial, and even I don't count that), so I wouldn't know.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club