*signs upcoming petition to remove STO, GW, GW2, AOC <and who knows what else I forgot> to be removed as MMORPG from this site*
Do your research before make reply thats inaccurate.
GW2 will be totally different game then GW1.
GW2 will be open world where many can explore and interact with each other, with some instance also, but main will be huge open world to explore with many in same world.
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.
Perhaps a lot of people here fail to see what roleplaying really is.
Roleplaying is playing the role of something to progress to an end goal. STO you are playing the role of a captain trying to achieve admiral.
MMO-Massive multiplayer Online-a game the contains many players in a social environment.
So technically STO is still a MMORPG. You are playing the role trying to progress to a goal while in a universe populated by many players where you could meet at social hubs (Earth Dock, DS9, etc.) and chat in a social nature (hey look chat window). Really haters, this is by all accounts, technically a MMORPG. Go hate on another game.
"If at first you don't succeed, excessive force is probably the answer."
Oh look another hater thread, how cute. Perhaps a lot of people here fail to see what roleplaying really is. Roleplaying is playing the role of something to progress to an end goal. STO you are playing the role of a captain trying to achieve admiral. MMO-Massive multiplayer Online-a game the contains many players in a social environment. So technically STO is still a MMORPG. You are playing the role trying to progress to a goal while in a universe populated by many players where you could meet at social hubs (Earth Dock, DS9, etc.) and chat in a social nature (hey look chat window). Really haters, this is by all accounts, technically a MMORPG. Go hate on another game.
I'm not sure when disagreeing on the GENRE of a game became hating....but, uhm....sure, okay.
It's hating because someone actually took the time to create a thread on this particular subject. What's the point really? If people think STO should be removed then others like Eve, and others like it should get removed as well.
The definition of the genre can be found in the link. The other definition was from wikipedia but unreliable.
Oh look another hater thread, how cute. Perhaps a lot of people here fail to see what roleplaying really is. Roleplaying is playing the role of something to progress to an end goal. STO you are playing the role of a captain trying to achieve admiral. MMO-Massive multiplayer Online-a game the contains many players in a social environment. So technically STO is still a MMORPG. You are playing the role trying to progress to a goal while in a universe populated by many players where you could meet at social hubs (Earth Dock, DS9, etc.) and chat in a social nature (hey look chat window). Really haters, this is by all accounts, technically a MMORPG. Go hate on another game.
I'm not sure when disagreeing on the GENRE of a game became hating....but, uhm....sure, okay.
Nitpicking... It's the same thread all over again. You've seen it in I'm shure in all those games you played. This time the OP choosed those thing to motivate his arguments when he is saying it's not an MMO. Nect time someone else will nitpick on something else to say it's not an MMO.
Can't you really see through all this and see what it is? Just another thread trying to discredit a game.
Amidst all the STO bashing, and the narrow individual definitions of what is or isn't an MMORPG, there was a great point raised here. It would be good if the site could narrow down the games into categories instead of just an alphabetical listing.
Then the fan's of each genre could hang around with each other demanding that certain games they didn't like needed moving categories unfortunately, but from everyone else's point of view it would save some time sifting through every game looking for one that met their requirements.
Didn't people post the same crap about GW? Get over it. It's an MMO style game. Granted STO is a very poor example of an MMORPG but who cares? The game will be deserted in six months 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.
So because your ticked off that Battlefield isn't listed as an MMO you thought you would make a thread that STO isn't one either, by "Reading between the lines" of an MMORPG writers piece? am I right or am I eating a different bunch of sour grapes than you are?
As for common areas in STO, what ever happened to the space stations being common areas? did you just ignore that one.
It's hating because someone actually took the time to create a thread on this particular subject. What's the point really? If people think STO should be removed then others like Eve, and others like it should get removed as well. The definition of the genre can be found in the link. The other definition was from wikipedia but unreliable. http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=MMORPG&i=56863,00.asp I think it's just humorous when people don't realize exactly how broad the genre of mmorpg is.
Uhm....EVE is NOTHING like STO other than being set in outerspace. There are WAY more people playing at the same time and able to be seen on your monitor at the same time, all playing together. Now, while it may not factor into the genre, it ALSO has an entirely different way of raising skills and customizing your character. From what I understand, STO is actually a cooperative multiplayer, NOT a MASSIVE multiplayer and yes...there IS a difference. Coop multiplayer USED to actually be a "genre" within the genre, so to speak. Games like Neverwinter Nights and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction, were considered coop multiplayer games, NOT MMORPGs. But somewhere along the way, the definition of specific genres has gotten blurry and muddled. It seems now, that most games MADE if they're not single player games and charge a monthly fee....are now considered MMORPGs. Pfffft.
EVE is definitely an MMO. STO....in my opinion, no. But it has nothing to do with "hating" the game. That's just ludicrous. There are multiple games that, as far as I and some other people are concerned, should not be included on a site for MMORPGs, but hey....this site decided LONG ago it wasn't REALLY just for MMORPGs, so....now we have a much much more loose definition here.
I still don't see starting a thread as an act of "hate," but I think I regard that word a lot more literally than you do, maybe.
How dare you put EVE and STO in the same sentence?... oh wait.. I posted this before...
That was precisely what I thought when I read that. And I don't hate STO, and I don't play EVE any more. And there are many other games besides STO that, in my opinion, don't really belong on a site about MMORPGs, and SOME of those games I DO play and really enjoy! However, that doesn't qualify them as MMORPGs, but...whatevs. This whole discussion is really futile, because MMORPG.com is not going to change it just because 20 or us think it's messed up...lol.
It's hating because someone actually took the time to create a thread on this particular subject. What's the point really? If people think STO should be removed then others like Eve, and others like it should get removed as well. The definition of the genre can be found in the link. The other definition was from wikipedia but unreliable. http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=MMORPG&i=56863,00.asp I think it's just humorous when people don't realize exactly how broad the genre of mmorpg is.
Uhm....EVE is NOTHING like STO other than being set in outerspace. There are WAY more people playing at the same time and able to be seen on your monitor at the same time, all playing together. Now, while it may not factor into the genre, it ALSO has an entirely different way of raising skills and customizing your character. From what I understand, STO is actually a cooperative multiplayer, NOT a MASSIVE multiplayer and yes...there IS a difference.
EVE is definitely an MMO. STO....in my opinion, no. But it has nothing to do with "hating" the game. That's just ludicrous. There are multiple games that, as far as I and some other people are concerned, should not be included on a site for MMORPGs, but hey....this site decided LONG ago it wasn't REALLY just for MMORPGs, so....now we have a much much more loose definition here.
I still don't see starting a thread as an act of "hate," but I think I think of that word a lot more literally than you do, maybe.
Taint no Borg's in Eve, or numbers of numbers, so take this !
7 of 9
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
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?
Ok I partially agree with you that STO isnt worth a monthly fee.......but thats largely because I think most mmos are not worth a monthly fee.
An mmo that lacks so-called "core elements" such as persistence and the capacity to interact with a lot of people? You've just described WoW and a whole load of similar mmos. The only interaction you get with other players is to cast buffs on them, challenge them to duels which they can ignore and talk to them in the chat channel. In general though most players just ignore each other as they are too busy playing their own individual copy of a static linear single player game online with multiplayer tacked on as an option. The optional group content can be found in dungeons and competitive content is in battlegrounds.......both of which are instanced areas that have no connection with the rest of the game world.......not that that matters of course as the so-called "gameworld" is pretty much immune to the actions of the players anyway. They are like optional mini games that are seperate from the main bulk of the game........which is designed as a single player game in which every player has their own individual copy of the game to play through which has no real or lasting impact on anyone else.
All of these games are nothing more than single player games dumped on a server, where you have the "option" to team up with other people to complete the linear static content......but only if their "copy" of the game coincides with your "copy" of the game. None of these themepark games are proper virtual worlds. Generally players can complete it all on their own though and perhaps team up with a few people to get through some difficult bits. At no point is a massive number of people required to make any changes to the gameworld that are persistent.
The "massive" part of mmo does not stand for massive number of players on a server at all. It stands for massive profit that these companies make from the suckers that willingly pay for it.
So yeah I'll ask myself what it is about these mmos that warrants a monthly fee. Nothing.......except the willingness of people to pay for it. Of course people will argue that these companies need to charge these fees to add new content to the game......despite the fact that Guildwars continued to work on and update their game for free. I hear that GW2 is also not going to charge a monthly fee. If thats correct then it will be amusing to see what effect that has on the genre. The other argument for it is server costs. Roughly £8 per player to maintain a bunch of servers? Nah I dont think so some how.
So really the only reason to charge monthly fees for games like this is because they can. Sure its a con but if people are happy to pay it then these companies have every right to take their money. If loads of people were willing to give me their money every month and required me to do very little for it then I would charge them as well.
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?
Ok I partially agree with you that STO isnt worth a monthly fee.......but thats largely because I think most mmos are not worth a monthly fee.
An mmo that lacks so-called "core elements" such as persistence and the capacity to interact with a lot of people? You've just described WoW and a whole load of similar mmos. The only interaction you get with other players is to cast buffs on them, challenge them to duels which they can ignore and talk to them in the chat channel. In general though most players just ignore each other as they are too busy playing their own individual copy of a static linear single player game online with multiplayer tacked on as an option. The optional group content can be found in dungeons and competitive content is in battlegrounds.......both of which are instanced areas that have no connection with the rest of the game world.......not that that matters of course as the so-called "gameworld" is pretty much immune to the actions of the players anyway. They are like optional mini games that are seperate from the main bulk of the game........which is designed as a single player game in which every player has their own individual copy of the game to play through which has no real or lasting impact on anyone else.
All of these games are nothing more than single player games dumped on a server, where you have the "option" to team up with other people to complete the linear static content......but only if their "copy" of the game coincides with your "copy" of the game. None of these themepark games are proper virtual worlds. Generally players can complete it all on their own though and perhaps team up with a few people to get through some difficult bits. At no point is a massive number of people required to make any changes to the gameworld that are persistent.
The "massive" part of mmo does not stand for massive number of players on a server at all. It stands for massive profit that these companies make from the suckers that willingly pay for it.
So yeah I'll ask myself what it is about these mmos that warrants a monthly fee. Nothing.......except the willingness of people to pay for it. Of course people will argue that these companies need to charge these fees to add new content to the game......despite the fact that Guildwars continued to work on and update their game for free. I hear that GW2 is also not going to charge a monthly fee. If thats correct then it will be amusing to see what effect that has on the genre. The other argument for it is server costs. Roughly £8 per player to maintain a bunch of servers? Nah I dont think so some how.
So really the only reason to charge monthly fees for games like this is because they can. Sure its a con but if people are happy to pay it then these companies have every right to take their money. If loads of people were willing to give me their money every month and required me to do very little for it then I would charge them as well.
See your point about other MMOGs but there is a saying: two wrongs does not make one right. Also STO puts it to the extreme, the game is so instanced and the PvP/PvE is so meaningless that the game could might as well be a single player game and there wouldnt be much of a difference. There is no single zone in this game that isnt instanced and there is no single action you can take in this game that affects the game world (except an "economy" that is next to worthless since NPCs and drops give you 99% of what you need).
I dont personally like WoW but in that game there are persistance zones where you get the feeling that you are sharing the world with other places. There are instances too but the game is not 100% instanced and also it has elements where you feel like you can make a difference, like fighting over control of some PvP zones and such.
So in games like WoW it can be argued that the game is centralised on servers but for STO? There is no real reason for it to be on a centralised server as it is all instanced and the world has no common demonator with all those instances. Hence the game has no reason to charge for a monthly fee (or an RMT), same as Guild Wars do not charge for one.
Cryptic is trying to both have the cake and eat it. They designed a single/multiplayer game but want to charge as it was an MMOG. It isnt, and wont be unless they introduce the core elements such as persistance and have atleast some impact on the virtual world. Same goes for Champions Online, I have no idea why there are people still paying for that game as the game could might as well be a single player game.
One could argue that the monthly fee is for adding content but after 6 months in CO I have not seen any addition of new content that warrants me to pay 15$ per month, not to mention they tried to charge for adding a zone spanning over 3 measly levels.
See your point about other MMOGs but there is a saying: two wrongs does not make one right. Also STO puts it to the extreme, the game is so instanced and the PvP/PvE is so meaningless that the game could might as well be a single player game and there wouldnt be much of a difference. There is no single zone in this game that isnt instanced and there is no single action you can take in this game that affects the game world (except an "economy" that is next to worthless since NPCs and drops give you 99% of what you need).
I dont personally like WoW but in that game there are persistance zones where you get the feeling that you are sharing the world with other places. There are instances too but the game is not 100% instanced and also it has elements where you feel like you can make a difference, like fighting over control of some PvP zones and such.
So in games like WoW it can be argued that the game is centralised on servers but for STO? There is no real reason for it to be on a centralised server as it is all instanced and the world has no common demonator with all those instances. Hence the game has no reason to charge for a monthly fee (or an RMT), same as Guild Wars do not charge for one.
Cryptic is trying to both have the cake and eat it. They designed a single/multiplayer game but want to charge as it was an MMOG. It isnt, and wont be unless they introduce the core elements such as persistance and have atleast some impact on the virtual world. Same goes for Champions Online, I have no idea why there are people still paying for that game as the game could might as well be a single player game.
One could argue that the monthly fee is for adding content but after 6 months in CO I have not seen any addition of new content that warrants me to pay 15$ per month, not to mention they tried to charge for adding a zone spanning over 3 measly levels.
To be honest......I agree with you.......although doesnt STO have starbases or something like that where players can hang out, type stories at each other, do dance emotes over and over again or whatever other boring activities people find entertaining in mmos? But yeah it does seem as though STO is pretty much the ultimate example of an online single player game with co-op features that charges a monthly fee......but then this is why I dont play mmos any more. If a new one comes out that genuinely takes proper advantage of the internet then I might show some interest but until then I'm sticking to single player games. They are smaller of course but I prefer quality over quantity and I dont have to pay extra each month to play them. I also dont have to watch other peoples mindless banter in a chat box while they play their own personal copy of the same game as me thus ruining my experience. I'm happy to interact with others in a game but only if its a real multiplayer game. If I really wanted to have the company of thousands of strangers while playing a single player game then I would just play it in windowed mode and have a chat group open in a seperate window.
I'm keeping my eye on the development of the Warhammer 40k mmo though. Who knows it might even turn out to be a proper mmo instead of an online single player game. Hmmm....yeah....I know. I will have to just keep up my prayers to the Enperor and hope that he delivers.
Is this retarded conversation still being had Yes, and why it's allowed here but not in the TOR section I don't know. Defintely a double standard going on there.
@ what anybody else defines the game as, im enjoying STO with friends in my guild, thats an mmo in my eyes.
Not to mention that it's thousands of players all together on one server.
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.
Umm I dunno, maybe because STO is OUT and TOR isn't? LOL
I have said this before, and will repeat here, MMORPGs are over and a new genre is (has) replaced them, MMOs. STO, AOC, GA, and some others are examples of the new category I call MMOs. They have the progression that sets them apart from other types of games but clearly lack in the persistent world part of traditional MMOs (and they can also lack in other areas like large open worlds, crafting, social play besides chat, etc). There is nothing wrong with MMOs in and of themselves, they are just the evolution of MMORPGs in the same way that old school FPS games like CS gave way to the BF and CoD games with new elements and dropping other elements.
I have said this before, and will repeat here, MMORPGs are over and a new genre is (has) replaced them, MMOs. STO, AOC, GA, and some others are examples of the new category I call MMOs. They have the progression that sets them apart from other types of games but clearly lack in the persistent world part of traditional MMOs (and they can also lack in other areas like large open worlds, crafting, social play besides chat, etc). There is nothing wrong with MMOs in and of themselves, they are just the evolution of MMORPGs in the same way that old school FPS games like CS gave way to the BF and CoD games with new elements and dropping other elements.
Evolution implies an improvment. I dont see how taking away core elements of what made MMORPGs special as an evolution. Aion might be considered an evolution with its mix of instanced and persistant zones but STO is not much more than Diablo when it comes to gameplay.
There is at least 1 common area... Earth Spaceport.
Yes, its instanced... however traffic seperation does not discount the fact that it is, indeed, a common shared location.
In fact, many area's are shared.. even instances are shared with others if the decide to join in.
STO is definately Massive... plenty of players on at the same time.
STO definately supports Multiplayer... instanced or not, still plenty of players on at the same time.
STO is Online... right?
MMO.
Odds are there will be more public places (starports/planets) added to the game as it matures. Is pretty 'light' right now for gathering spots, however that is not necessarily a permanent thing.
STO might be a bit slim on the heavy MMO (social) functions at this time, but it still qualifies as a MMO game IMO.
Mission instances: 10 people max Fleet mission instances: 50 people max Spacestation instances: 60 people max Sector map instances: 50 people max Persistant zones: 0 MMOG: No
I agree with you, but...the STO fans are never going to get the logic behind it, so there's really no point in explaining it to them anymore.
I went around and around with this same thing (as many others did) with the CrimeCraft players, and I played in the CC beta, so trust me...when I say it's NOT an MMO, I'm not fucking kidding or talking out my butt. It is an instanced FPS coop multiplayer with a VISUAL lobby. The only thing making it different from Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction Online (other than the setting not being fantasy), is that you can actually see the avatars of the people that are in the lobby with you....period. You cannot travel outside the lobby with 100 people and go trekking (no pun intended) across the game world together, or follow each other on mounts, all 100 of you and go raid some city stronghold. Nope. Nada. And NO ONE ever ever has called Diablo 2 an MMO. See also Neverwinter Nights....ALSO a coop multiplayer. As a matter of fact....even Guild Wars might fall into this category, but at least GW doesn't CLAIM to be an MMO, they call themselves an MOG.
STO is what USED to be called a cooperative (coop) multiplayer online game, NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer online game.
The whole term MMO is objective, and opinion based. I see a ton of people playing the same game, with everyone able to group or talk or otherwise it is an MMO, if people sit and goto different servers that only allow under like 100 people at a time, then it is not an MMO which is also furthered by other factors.
End point, the term does not have a universal meaning, it is all based on opinion, and taste.
Owner/Admin of GodlessGamer.com - Gaming news and reviews for the godless.
Mission instances: 10 people max Fleet mission instances: 50 people max Spacestation instances: 60 people max Sector map instances: 50 people max Persistant zones: 0 MMOG: No False. But thanks for playing.
Comments
Do your research before make reply thats inaccurate.
GW2 will be totally different game then GW1.
GW2 will be open world where many can explore and interact with each other, with some instance also, but main will be huge open world to explore with many in same world.
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.
Oh look another hater thread, how cute.
Perhaps a lot of people here fail to see what roleplaying really is.
Roleplaying is playing the role of something to progress to an end goal. STO you are playing the role of a captain trying to achieve admiral.
MMO-Massive multiplayer Online-a game the contains many players in a social environment.
So technically STO is still a MMORPG. You are playing the role trying to progress to a goal while in a universe populated by many players where you could meet at social hubs (Earth Dock, DS9, etc.) and chat in a social nature (hey look chat window). Really haters, this is by all accounts, technically a MMORPG. Go hate on another game.
I'm not sure when disagreeing on the GENRE of a game became hating....but, uhm....sure, okay.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
It's hating because someone actually took the time to create a thread on this particular subject. What's the point really? If people think STO should be removed then others like Eve, and others like it should get removed as well.
The definition of the genre can be found in the link. The other definition was from wikipedia but unreliable.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=MMORPG&i=56863,00.asp
I think it's just humorous when people don't realize exactly how broad the genre of mmorpg is.
I'm not sure when disagreeing on the GENRE of a game became hating....but, uhm....sure, okay.
Nitpicking... It's the same thread all over again. You've seen it in I'm shure in all those games you played. This time the OP choosed those thing to motivate his arguments when he is saying it's not an MMO. Nect time someone else will nitpick on something else to say it's not an MMO.
Can't you really see through all this and see what it is? Just another thread trying to discredit a game.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Amidst all the STO bashing, and the narrow individual definitions of what is or isn't an MMORPG, there was a great point raised here. It would be good if the site could narrow down the games into categories instead of just an alphabetical listing.
Then the fan's of each genre could hang around with each other demanding that certain games they didn't like needed moving categories unfortunately, but from everyone else's point of view it would save some time sifting through every game looking for one that met their requirements.
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.
So because your ticked off that Battlefield isn't listed as an MMO you thought you would make a thread that STO isn't one either, by "Reading between the lines" of an MMORPG writers piece? am I right or am I eating a different bunch of sour grapes than you are?
As for common areas in STO, what ever happened to the space stations being common areas? did you just ignore that one.
Uhm....EVE is NOTHING like STO other than being set in outerspace. There are WAY more people playing at the same time and able to be seen on your monitor at the same time, all playing together. Now, while it may not factor into the genre, it ALSO has an entirely different way of raising skills and customizing your character. From what I understand, STO is actually a cooperative multiplayer, NOT a MASSIVE multiplayer and yes...there IS a difference. Coop multiplayer USED to actually be a "genre" within the genre, so to speak. Games like Neverwinter Nights and Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction, were considered coop multiplayer games, NOT MMORPGs. But somewhere along the way, the definition of specific genres has gotten blurry and muddled. It seems now, that most games MADE if they're not single player games and charge a monthly fee....are now considered MMORPGs. Pfffft.
EVE is definitely an MMO. STO....in my opinion, no. But it has nothing to do with "hating" the game. That's just ludicrous. There are multiple games that, as far as I and some other people are concerned, should not be included on a site for MMORPGs, but hey....this site decided LONG ago it wasn't REALLY just for MMORPGs, so....now we have a much much more loose definition here.
I still don't see starting a thread as an act of "hate," but I think I regard that word a lot more literally than you do, maybe.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
How dare you put EVE and STO in the same sentence?... oh wait.. I posted this before...
There is no knowledge that is no power.
That was precisely what I thought when I read that. And I don't hate STO, and I don't play EVE any more. And there are many other games besides STO that, in my opinion, don't really belong on a site about MMORPGs, and SOME of those games I DO play and really enjoy! However, that doesn't qualify them as MMORPGs, but...whatevs.
This whole discussion is really futile, because MMORPG.com is not going to change it just because 20 or us think it's messed up...lol.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Uhm....EVE is NOTHING like STO other than being set in outerspace. There are WAY more people playing at the same time and able to be seen on your monitor at the same time, all playing together. Now, while it may not factor into the genre, it ALSO has an entirely different way of raising skills and customizing your character. From what I understand, STO is actually a cooperative multiplayer, NOT a MASSIVE multiplayer and yes...there IS a difference.
EVE is definitely an MMO. STO....in my opinion, no. But it has nothing to do with "hating" the game. That's just ludicrous. There are multiple games that, as far as I and some other people are concerned, should not be included on a site for MMORPGs, but hey....this site decided LONG ago it wasn't REALLY just for MMORPGs, so....now we have a much much more loose definition here.
I still don't see starting a thread as an act of "hate," but I think I think of that word a lot more literally than you do, maybe.
Taint no Borg's in Eve, or numbers of numbers, so take this !
7 of 9
MAGA
And here is the answer that should effectively end this thread:
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/022010/5749_Why-We-Wont-DeList-STO.html
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You're too slow. I already posted that link in post #45. However like a borg this thread simply shrugs it off and keeps on coming.
Ok I partially agree with you that STO isnt worth a monthly fee.......but thats largely because I think most mmos are not worth a monthly fee.
An mmo that lacks so-called "core elements" such as persistence and the capacity to interact with a lot of people? You've just described WoW and a whole load of similar mmos. The only interaction you get with other players is to cast buffs on them, challenge them to duels which they can ignore and talk to them in the chat channel. In general though most players just ignore each other as they are too busy playing their own individual copy of a static linear single player game online with multiplayer tacked on as an option. The optional group content can be found in dungeons and competitive content is in battlegrounds.......both of which are instanced areas that have no connection with the rest of the game world.......not that that matters of course as the so-called "gameworld" is pretty much immune to the actions of the players anyway. They are like optional mini games that are seperate from the main bulk of the game........which is designed as a single player game in which every player has their own individual copy of the game to play through which has no real or lasting impact on anyone else.
All of these games are nothing more than single player games dumped on a server, where you have the "option" to team up with other people to complete the linear static content......but only if their "copy" of the game coincides with your "copy" of the game. None of these themepark games are proper virtual worlds. Generally players can complete it all on their own though and perhaps team up with a few people to get through some difficult bits. At no point is a massive number of people required to make any changes to the gameworld that are persistent.
The "massive" part of mmo does not stand for massive number of players on a server at all. It stands for massive profit that these companies make from the suckers that willingly pay for it.
So yeah I'll ask myself what it is about these mmos that warrants a monthly fee. Nothing.......except the willingness of people to pay for it. Of course people will argue that these companies need to charge these fees to add new content to the game......despite the fact that Guildwars continued to work on and update their game for free. I hear that GW2 is also not going to charge a monthly fee. If thats correct then it will be amusing to see what effect that has on the genre. The other argument for it is server costs. Roughly £8 per player to maintain a bunch of servers? Nah I dont think so some how.
So really the only reason to charge monthly fees for games like this is because they can. Sure its a con but if people are happy to pay it then these companies have every right to take their money. If loads of people were willing to give me their money every month and required me to do very little for it then I would charge them as well.
Ok I partially agree with you that STO isnt worth a monthly fee.......but thats largely because I think most mmos are not worth a monthly fee.
An mmo that lacks so-called "core elements" such as persistence and the capacity to interact with a lot of people? You've just described WoW and a whole load of similar mmos. The only interaction you get with other players is to cast buffs on them, challenge them to duels which they can ignore and talk to them in the chat channel. In general though most players just ignore each other as they are too busy playing their own individual copy of a static linear single player game online with multiplayer tacked on as an option. The optional group content can be found in dungeons and competitive content is in battlegrounds.......both of which are instanced areas that have no connection with the rest of the game world.......not that that matters of course as the so-called "gameworld" is pretty much immune to the actions of the players anyway. They are like optional mini games that are seperate from the main bulk of the game........which is designed as a single player game in which every player has their own individual copy of the game to play through which has no real or lasting impact on anyone else.
All of these games are nothing more than single player games dumped on a server, where you have the "option" to team up with other people to complete the linear static content......but only if their "copy" of the game coincides with your "copy" of the game. None of these themepark games are proper virtual worlds. Generally players can complete it all on their own though and perhaps team up with a few people to get through some difficult bits. At no point is a massive number of people required to make any changes to the gameworld that are persistent.
The "massive" part of mmo does not stand for massive number of players on a server at all. It stands for massive profit that these companies make from the suckers that willingly pay for it.
So yeah I'll ask myself what it is about these mmos that warrants a monthly fee. Nothing.......except the willingness of people to pay for it. Of course people will argue that these companies need to charge these fees to add new content to the game......despite the fact that Guildwars continued to work on and update their game for free. I hear that GW2 is also not going to charge a monthly fee. If thats correct then it will be amusing to see what effect that has on the genre. The other argument for it is server costs. Roughly £8 per player to maintain a bunch of servers? Nah I dont think so some how.
So really the only reason to charge monthly fees for games like this is because they can. Sure its a con but if people are happy to pay it then these companies have every right to take their money. If loads of people were willing to give me their money every month and required me to do very little for it then I would charge them as well.
See your point about other MMOGs but there is a saying: two wrongs does not make one right. Also STO puts it to the extreme, the game is so instanced and the PvP/PvE is so meaningless that the game could might as well be a single player game and there wouldnt be much of a difference. There is no single zone in this game that isnt instanced and there is no single action you can take in this game that affects the game world (except an "economy" that is next to worthless since NPCs and drops give you 99% of what you need).
I dont personally like WoW but in that game there are persistance zones where you get the feeling that you are sharing the world with other places. There are instances too but the game is not 100% instanced and also it has elements where you feel like you can make a difference, like fighting over control of some PvP zones and such.
So in games like WoW it can be argued that the game is centralised on servers but for STO? There is no real reason for it to be on a centralised server as it is all instanced and the world has no common demonator with all those instances. Hence the game has no reason to charge for a monthly fee (or an RMT), same as Guild Wars do not charge for one.
Cryptic is trying to both have the cake and eat it. They designed a single/multiplayer game but want to charge as it was an MMOG. It isnt, and wont be unless they introduce the core elements such as persistance and have atleast some impact on the virtual world. Same goes for Champions Online, I have no idea why there are people still paying for that game as the game could might as well be a single player game.
One could argue that the monthly fee is for adding content but after 6 months in CO I have not seen any addition of new content that warrants me to pay 15$ per month, not to mention they tried to charge for adding a zone spanning over 3 measly levels.
* I said stuff *
See your point about other MMOGs but there is a saying: two wrongs does not make one right. Also STO puts it to the extreme, the game is so instanced and the PvP/PvE is so meaningless that the game could might as well be a single player game and there wouldnt be much of a difference. There is no single zone in this game that isnt instanced and there is no single action you can take in this game that affects the game world (except an "economy" that is next to worthless since NPCs and drops give you 99% of what you need).
I dont personally like WoW but in that game there are persistance zones where you get the feeling that you are sharing the world with other places. There are instances too but the game is not 100% instanced and also it has elements where you feel like you can make a difference, like fighting over control of some PvP zones and such.
So in games like WoW it can be argued that the game is centralised on servers but for STO? There is no real reason for it to be on a centralised server as it is all instanced and the world has no common demonator with all those instances. Hence the game has no reason to charge for a monthly fee (or an RMT), same as Guild Wars do not charge for one.
Cryptic is trying to both have the cake and eat it. They designed a single/multiplayer game but want to charge as it was an MMOG. It isnt, and wont be unless they introduce the core elements such as persistance and have atleast some impact on the virtual world. Same goes for Champions Online, I have no idea why there are people still paying for that game as the game could might as well be a single player game.
One could argue that the monthly fee is for adding content but after 6 months in CO I have not seen any addition of new content that warrants me to pay 15$ per month, not to mention they tried to charge for adding a zone spanning over 3 measly levels.
To be honest......I agree with you.......although doesnt STO have starbases or something like that where players can hang out, type stories at each other, do dance emotes over and over again or whatever other boring activities people find entertaining in mmos? But yeah it does seem as though STO is pretty much the ultimate example of an online single player game with co-op features that charges a monthly fee......but then this is why I dont play mmos any more. If a new one comes out that genuinely takes proper advantage of the internet then I might show some interest but until then I'm sticking to single player games. They are smaller of course but I prefer quality over quantity and I dont have to pay extra each month to play them. I also dont have to watch other peoples mindless banter in a chat box while they play their own personal copy of the same game as me thus ruining my experience. I'm happy to interact with others in a game but only if its a real multiplayer game. If I really wanted to have the company of thousands of strangers while playing a single player game then I would just play it in windowed mode and have a chat group open in a seperate window.
I'm keeping my eye on the development of the Warhammer 40k mmo though. Who knows it might even turn out to be a proper mmo instead of an online single player game. Hmmm....yeah....I know. I will have to just keep up my prayers to the Enperor and hope that he delivers.
Not to mention that it's thousands of players all together on one server.
[Mod edit]
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.
Umm I dunno, maybe because STO is OUT and TOR isn't? LOL
I have said this before, and will repeat here, MMORPGs are over and a new genre is (has) replaced them, MMOs. STO, AOC, GA, and some others are examples of the new category I call MMOs. They have the progression that sets them apart from other types of games but clearly lack in the persistent world part of traditional MMOs (and they can also lack in other areas like large open worlds, crafting, social play besides chat, etc). There is nothing wrong with MMOs in and of themselves, they are just the evolution of MMORPGs in the same way that old school FPS games like CS gave way to the BF and CoD games with new elements and dropping other elements.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Evolution implies an improvment. I dont see how taking away core elements of what made MMORPGs special as an evolution. Aion might be considered an evolution with its mix of instanced and persistant zones but STO is not much more than Diablo when it comes to gameplay.
There is at least 1 common area... Earth Spaceport.
Yes, its instanced... however traffic seperation does not discount the fact that it is, indeed, a common shared location.
In fact, many area's are shared.. even instances are shared with others if the decide to join in.
STO is definately Massive... plenty of players on at the same time.
STO definately supports Multiplayer... instanced or not, still plenty of players on at the same time.
STO is Online... right?
MMO.
Odds are there will be more public places (starports/planets) added to the game as it matures. Is pretty 'light' right now for gathering spots, however that is not necessarily a permanent thing.
STO might be a bit slim on the heavy MMO (social) functions at this time, but it still qualifies as a MMO game IMO.
SWG/STO/(SWTOR)
Mission instances: 10 people max
Fleet mission instances: 50 people max
Spacestation instances: 60 people max
Sector map instances: 50 people max
Persistant zones: 0
MMOG: No
My gaming blog
I agree with you, but...the STO fans are never going to get the logic behind it, so there's really no point in explaining it to them anymore.
I went around and around with this same thing (as many others did) with the CrimeCraft players, and I played in the CC beta, so trust me...when I say it's NOT an MMO, I'm not fucking kidding or talking out my butt. It is an instanced FPS coop multiplayer with a VISUAL lobby. The only thing making it different from Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction Online (other than the setting not being fantasy), is that you can actually see the avatars of the people that are in the lobby with you....period. You cannot travel outside the lobby with 100 people and go trekking (no pun intended) across the game world together, or follow each other on mounts, all 100 of you and go raid some city stronghold. Nope. Nada. And NO ONE ever ever has called Diablo 2 an MMO. See also Neverwinter Nights....ALSO a coop multiplayer. As a matter of fact....even Guild Wars might fall into this category, but at least GW doesn't CLAIM to be an MMO, they call themselves an MOG.
STO is what USED to be called a cooperative (coop) multiplayer online game, NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer online game.
[Mod edit]
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
The whole term MMO is objective, and opinion based. I see a ton of people playing the same game, with everyone able to group or talk or otherwise it is an MMO, if people sit and goto different servers that only allow under like 100 people at a time, then it is not an MMO which is also furthered by other factors.
End point, the term does not have a universal meaning, it is all based on opinion, and taste.
Owner/Admin of GodlessGamer.com - Gaming news and reviews for the godless.