It's not an mmo yet. It will be at launch though. There will be a huge clan battle system with people holding territory and all that. The system is similair to Europa or Hearts of Iron. It is closed beta. Before you make a determination that it won't be an MMO, why don't you look at what it's supposed to be at launch.
this. the persistant battle for territory isn't in the game yet, but will be. so it's kind of strange to remove a pre-launch game just because the "mmo-ish" features haven't been implemented yet.
It's not an mmo yet. It will be at launch though. There will be a huge clan battle system with people holding territory and all that. The system is similair to Europa or Hearts of Iron. It is closed beta. Before you make a determination that it won't be an MMO, why don't you look at what it's supposed to be at launch.
this. the persistant battle for territory isn't in the game yet, but will be. so it's kind of strange to remove a pre-launch game just because the "mmo-ish" features haven't been implemented yet.
Hmm, did anyone ask the russian players if those features are there?
since afterall, the game has reached RELEASE in russia...
Somehow, I could not find the "BIG" features in the patchnotes, despite that the patch for the european beta, will be the version the russian release game is playing on...
Nope, no clans, no clanwars yet, but there may be soon as we are getting 0.5.4 tomorrow. I think international release will include all of the features when its released.
But for all that is good about WoT, being unable to play with friends without paying money, sucks ass.
You cant create party without getting premium account for 10$ a month. Is it MMO nao?
You cant create a party in a lot of other so-called mmos either without paying more than $10 a month (ie you cant play them at all unless you pay the subscription fee), so whats your point?
Anyway its odd really that a game which clearly seems to be promoting the MULTIPLAYER and TEAMWORK aspect of online gaming and also has the RPG part to offer is being deemed as unworthy. Meanwhile other so-called mmos which promote SOLO or small-scale CO-OP gameplay against the computer (rather like a single player game in co-op mode) is accepted as an mmo with no questions.
"Oh but they have "worlds" you can wander around in"
Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.
Nope I cant see the words "open world where I can meet asshats" in that description. Why is it a neccessity? Those "big open worlds" are static and boring in most mmos anyway.
"Oh but its only an mmo if you can have hundreds of players in the same place"
Yeah cos that happens all the time in mmos doesnt it. What about mmos that have instances of zones to deal with overcrowding? Should they get thrown out as well. Doesnt EQ2 do that?
I agree with Mr Bloodworth. Removing this game from their website is quite silly. What purpose does it serve? Great so a potential good gaming option is removed from the sight of potential buyers. Well done. What an achievement.
It has the MMO aspect. It has the RPG aspect. It should stay.
Nope, no clans, no clanwars yet, but there may be soon as we are getting 0.5.4 tomorrow. I think international release will include all of the features when its released.
But for all that is good about WoT, being unable to play with friends without paying money, sucks ass.
0.5.4 doesnt say to have that... Sadly.
And still, it is a released game...
and don't get me wrong, I love WoT, but I don't see it as a MMORPG, more like a Battlefield Heroes game.. wich aint a MMORPG either hehe.
WoT is not a MMO. That's correct. I'm in the beta.
Guild Wars is also not a MMO. Why is it still listed here? How many people at a time can you play with in Guild Wars? And the cities don't count; they're just glorified chat and server browser rooms like Diablo's.
Massive refers to how many people at a time you can play with, not how many people total play the game. If it were the latter then online chess and online poker would qualify as MMOs.
If you're going to get rid of WoT, get rid of the other games that don't qualify. Not doing that makes you look bad and/or biased and/or paid to promote certain games only.
EDIT: In Guild Wars the entire game is instanced, or was last time I played. In games like EQ2 or WoW instancing is only part of the game, and you have the potential to see literally hundreds of players at one time in the same place in most of the world. Whether you ever do or not is irrelevant. In Guild Wars the only place you can see lots of players is in the cities, and the cities aren't really part of the game, they're just places to set up parties to go play instances. It's much like playing Diablo, browsing the server list and joining a game only it's done ingame.
Wow, i lol at the reaction. Many people just dont get it, and bravo mmorpg.com for admitting WoT not and mmo"RPG" (just need to remove some other game too eg global agenda).
Now for the ones who detest this, you might wanna consider including CS:S, modern warfare 2, unreal tournament, and other shooters to the list.
Once again, good move by the admins. Suck it up people.
wouldnt MMO relate to any game that is perpetually online 24/7 and the RPG element being that you have to level up some sort of person/item??
i enjoy WoT, and to my own personal definition it would be an MMO. to some extent, sure its not an MMORPG like EQ or AOC. but you do have crew you have to level up via battles. you have tech trees you unlock with battle field XP. much like you level up in combat arms or other MMOFPS games. they are still listed on the game guides as im aware.
so why target WoT?? did someone get pwned badly by the games SPGs?? or perhaps a noob MS-1 pwned them in their tiger...
i personally dont see how this game can compare to CS or TF at all. they have no leveling up, the only perpetual things is the servers that shut down when people get bored hosting them, there is no costs for anything.
WoT right now the smallest maps they claim it will have. the gold version is said to have way larger maps, and possible country/map captures. that go beyond simply CtF or slug matches, something along the lines of WWII online... so if you want to take off WoT. then mmorpg may as well wipe out every game from their roster and start from scratch..
Now if people can get that, can't they get that Guild Wars isn't an mmo?
I just don't understand.
Because Guild Wars is, with a doubt, an RPG (and with all the excitement building around GW2 they'd be silly to remove it at this point regardless).
Also, both Guild Wars and Global Agenda feature PvP and PvE gameplay elements.
World of Tanks doesn't. I'm sure if the developers expand the game to offer rich campaign modes (either PvP or PvE), some form of PvE scenario play, or deeper Crew progression features the site will more than happily add it back to the list of games they cover.
The game is Multiplaer, Many people can log on at the same time
The game is Online, that is where you play it
You play as a TANK, remind you of EVE a bit there so that makes it First Person
Also you Shoot other tanks, THAT IS IT!!! SO it is a shooter.
That should answer the question if it is an MMO right there, it is an MMO just not an MMORPG.
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
You cant create party without getting premium account for 10$ a month. Is it MMO nao?
You cant create a party in a lot of other so-called mmos either without paying more than $10 a month (ie you cant play them at all unless you pay the subscription fee), so whats your point?
Anyway its odd really that a game which clearly seems to be promoting the MULTIPLAYER and TEAMWORK aspect of online gaming and also has the RPG part to offer is being deemed as unworthy. Meanwhile other so-called mmos which promote SOLO or small-scale CO-OP gameplay against the computer (rather like a single player game in co-op mode) is accepted as an mmo with no questions.
"Oh but they have "worlds" you can wander around in"
Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.
Nope I cant see the words "open world where I can meet asshats" in that description. Why is it a neccessity? Those "big open worlds" are static and boring in most mmos anyway.
"Oh but its only an mmo if you can have hundreds of players in the same place"
Yeah cos that happens all the time in mmos doesnt it. What about mmos that have instances of zones to deal with overcrowding? Should they get thrown out as well. Doesnt EQ2 do that?
I agree with Mr Bloodworth. Removing this game from their website is quite silly. What purpose does it serve? Great so a potential good gaming option is removed from the sight of potential buyers. Well done. What an achievement.
It has the MMO aspect. It has the RPG aspect. It should stay.
But at least those games are posed as p2p games, not as single player p2p trials masked as a f2p game.
As for MMO part, I agree with you. Lobby MMO's a kinda popular, and when I first saw them on mmorpg.com I was like wtf, but then I got used to them. Same with static worlds - other than having a chat channel, you have a world where you can chat, not as boring, but still a same chat. You are forced to instance anyway, making most MMO's into multiplayer games with a big chat room.
Thus the only truly MMO are the ones where your action can actually make an impact on the world itself, like those sandbox games(Face of mankind, Wurm, EVE (though I hate eve as a game, it truly deserves MMO title)), or Ultima, the 1st MMORPG ever, heh.
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
Who taught you that? PR? Seeing a huge "players online" number doesnt make me FEEL that I play a MMO game.
edit: sorry, have to finish watching an episode and go to sleep. Didnt quite understand your post, but I mean that you cant go like "massive - check, multyplayer - check, online - check"
Originally posted by ioryadragon This article made my laugh my ass off. 1) half or your list contains games like this, will you remove them ))? 2) Thats all you can do for the most popular mmorpg portal, 4 random phrases, is this your first article u wrote? 3) MMORPG.com never ceases to amazes me lol (did he get payed for this article, lmao)
Looks like he was. Rather than discussing if this game was MMO, he was like "oh thats cool shiny, go play nao!"
I’m gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear.
Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism.
Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things.
Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that.
Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.).
So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?
Originally posted by Dietaether Im gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear. Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism. Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things. Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that. Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.). So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?
That cleared some things up, at least for me and my knowledge of english. I loved BDSM part XD You sure know a lot about it. I wish it was you who made an article such as this.
p.s. what do you think about a game where player can make an impact on the world itself? Can it be a requirement for a game to be called MMOG? Because I've been thinking, and more I do, more MMORPGs like WoW or others seem like a multiplayer games with a huge chat rooms.
For me to be a MMO, you have to have persistence. Most of these games just don't have it. World of tanks most certainly does not. So why are we arguing? Show me the persistence. Nothing wrong with it being a multiplayer shooter. A lot of people like those types of games,
With all the existing and upcoming MMO's out there, there is plenty to discuss on this site without adding in games that are not MMO's
Level Progression system needs improvement. Such as you are never going to be attached to any tank crew as you have no point progressing them with your tank. Also learning new tanks does not leave any attachment as its more a collect them all affair.
Room setup also could use improvement, but the speed at which games start is impressive.
As far as twitch based games come, its definetly impressive. I would say more impressive then modern FPS like Modern Warfare 2.
Comments
You cant create party without getting premium account for 10$ a month. Is it MMO nao?
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
Hmm, did anyone ask the russian players if those features are there?
since afterall, the game has reached RELEASE in russia...
Somehow, I could not find the "BIG" features in the patchnotes, despite that the patch for the european beta, will be the version the russian release game is playing on...
Nope, no clans, no clanwars yet, but there may be soon as we are getting 0.5.4 tomorrow. I think international release will include all of the features when its released.
But for all that is good about WoT, being unable to play with friends without paying money, sucks ass.
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
p.s. nowadays everything that doesnt have a single player is called a MMO.
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
You cant create a party in a lot of other so-called mmos either without paying more than $10 a month (ie you cant play them at all unless you pay the subscription fee), so whats your point?
Anyway its odd really that a game which clearly seems to be promoting the MULTIPLAYER and TEAMWORK aspect of online gaming and also has the RPG part to offer is being deemed as unworthy. Meanwhile other so-called mmos which promote SOLO or small-scale CO-OP gameplay against the computer (rather like a single player game in co-op mode) is accepted as an mmo with no questions.
"Oh but they have "worlds" you can wander around in"
Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game.
Nope I cant see the words "open world where I can meet asshats" in that description. Why is it a neccessity? Those "big open worlds" are static and boring in most mmos anyway.
"Oh but its only an mmo if you can have hundreds of players in the same place"
Yeah cos that happens all the time in mmos doesnt it. What about mmos that have instances of zones to deal with overcrowding? Should they get thrown out as well. Doesnt EQ2 do that?
I agree with Mr Bloodworth. Removing this game from their website is quite silly. What purpose does it serve? Great so a potential good gaming option is removed from the sight of potential buyers. Well done. What an achievement.
It has the MMO aspect. It has the RPG aspect. It should stay.
0.5.4 doesnt say to have that... Sadly.
And still, it is a released game...
and don't get me wrong, I love WoT, but I don't see it as a MMORPG, more like a Battlefield Heroes game.. wich aint a MMORPG either hehe.
WoT is not a MMO. That's correct. I'm in the beta.
Guild Wars is also not a MMO. Why is it still listed here? How many people at a time can you play with in Guild Wars? And the cities don't count; they're just glorified chat and server browser rooms like Diablo's.
Massive refers to how many people at a time you can play with, not how many people total play the game. If it were the latter then online chess and online poker would qualify as MMOs.
If you're going to get rid of WoT, get rid of the other games that don't qualify. Not doing that makes you look bad and/or biased and/or paid to promote certain games only.
EDIT: In Guild Wars the entire game is instanced, or was last time I played. In games like EQ2 or WoW instancing is only part of the game, and you have the potential to see literally hundreds of players at one time in the same place in most of the world. Whether you ever do or not is irrelevant. In Guild Wars the only place you can see lots of players is in the cities, and the cities aren't really part of the game, they're just places to set up parties to go play instances. It's much like playing Diablo, browsing the server list and joining a game only it's done ingame.
It's been done before....
One word "Tanarus"
The game that paid for the making of Everquest 1
Wow, i lol at the reaction. Many people just dont get it, and bravo mmorpg.com for admitting WoT not and mmo"RPG" (just need to remove some other game too eg global agenda).
Now for the ones who detest this, you might wanna consider including CS:S, modern warfare 2, unreal tournament, and other shooters to the list.
Once again, good move by the admins. Suck it up people.
Nice screens. And well 4k Players on 100 battles counts as Massive Multiplayer Online.
Dont be thát picky.
Hey but Guild Wars get to stay?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
wouldnt MMO relate to any game that is perpetually online 24/7 and the RPG element being that you have to level up some sort of person/item??
i enjoy WoT, and to my own personal definition it would be an MMO. to some extent, sure its not an MMORPG like EQ or AOC. but you do have crew you have to level up via battles. you have tech trees you unlock with battle field XP. much like you level up in combat arms or other MMOFPS games. they are still listed on the game guides as im aware.
so why target WoT?? did someone get pwned badly by the games SPGs?? or perhaps a noob MS-1 pwned them in their tiger...
i personally dont see how this game can compare to CS or TF at all. they have no leveling up, the only perpetual things is the servers that shut down when people get bored hosting them, there is no costs for anything.
WoT right now the smallest maps they claim it will have. the gold version is said to have way larger maps, and possible country/map captures. that go beyond simply CtF or slug matches, something along the lines of WWII online... so if you want to take off WoT. then mmorpg may as well wipe out every game from their roster and start from scratch..
you're right, world of tanks isn't an mmo.
Now if people can get that, can't they get that Guild Wars isn't an mmo?
I just don't understand.
Waiting for: Archeage, Darkfall 2.0, and Planetside 2.
R.I.P Shadowbane; The best MMORPG I've ever played...
Check out my amateur gaming blog at: Thegamingbible.com
Because Guild Wars is, with a doubt, an RPG (and with all the excitement building around GW2 they'd be silly to remove it at this point regardless).
Also, both Guild Wars and Global Agenda feature PvP and PvE gameplay elements.
World of Tanks doesn't. I'm sure if the developers expand the game to offer rich campaign modes (either PvP or PvE), some form of PvE scenario play, or deeper Crew progression features the site will more than happily add it back to the list of games they cover.
The term "Massively" ( not "massive" as you incorrectly assigned it ) in MMO means massive amounts of people, not a massive world. "Massively Multiplayer Online" = massive amounts of people playing together at the same time online.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
But at least those games are posed as p2p games, not as single player p2p trials masked as a f2p game.
As for MMO part, I agree with you. Lobby MMO's a kinda popular, and when I first saw them on mmorpg.com I was like wtf, but then I got used to them. Same with static worlds - other than having a chat channel, you have a world where you can chat, not as boring, but still a same chat. You are forced to instance anyway, making most MMO's into multiplayer games with a big chat room.
Thus the only truly MMO are the ones where your action can actually make an impact on the world itself, like those sandbox games(Face of mankind, Wurm, EVE (though I hate eve as a game, it truly deserves MMO title)), or Ultima, the 1st MMORPG ever, heh.
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
edit: sorry, have to finish watching an episode and go to sleep. Didnt quite understand your post, but I mean that you cant go like "massive - check, multyplayer - check, online - check"
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
This article made my laugh my ass off.
1) half or your list contains games like this, will you remove them
))?
2) Thats all you can do for the most popular mmorpg portal, 4 random phrases, is this your first article u wrote?
3) MMORPG.com never ceases to amazes me lol (did he get payed for this article, lmao)
Bah! i cant type or even edit. Nice comment system...
p.s. to edit go to forum->news discussion
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
I’m gonna make a strange comparison, but stick with me and have faith. It's relevant, I swear.
Everyone has heard the abbreviation BDSM in relation to folks who get their jollies with whips and chains, but what does the abbreviation actually stand for? Well, it has more than one meaning! BD stands for bondage and discipline, DS stands for dominance and submission, and SM stands for sadism and masochism.
Each of the middle letters serves 2 purposes. In much the same way, there are two accepted definitions of what MMOG stands for, and the confusion arises in that they are both similar sounding but mean two totally different things.
Definition 1: Massively-Multiplayer Online Game. This is the most commonly used definition. Here, Massively is an adverb enhancing an adjective. The phrase "massively-multiplayer" refers to the concept that a massive number of people can be playing together at one time. The problem arises here when trying to decide what a massive number of people is. We'll come back to that.
Definition 2: Massive, Multiplayer, Online Game. This definition is a bit less commonly used but just as relevant. Massive and Multiplayer are separate adjectives, both describing the subject noun, "Game". In this definition the emphasis is on the scope and scale of the game itself. Games are considered massive if they have persistent worlds spanning multiple zones capable of getting lost inside, multiple forms of progression and things to spend your time doing (PvE, PvP, Crafting, Gathering, Farming, Questing, Etc.).
So which definition are we officially using? The problem is, when defining MMOs, we're using both without really realizing it. Much like how a person can be a S in the DS but not the SM when talking about folks who only hit them because they love them, MMOs can be massive multiplayer games that are not massively multiplayer like guild wars, or it can be massively multiplayer without being massive like APBs single city capable of supporting 250 players. It's at these edges where the lines of an MMO and non-MMO blur. It then falls to the community to decide for itself, to what measure is a massive?
p.s. what do you think about a game where player can make an impact on the world itself? Can it be a requirement for a game to be called MMOG? Because I've been thinking, and more I do, more MMORPGs like WoW or others seem like a multiplayer games with a huge chat rooms.
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
For me to be a MMO, you have to have persistence. Most of these games just don't have it. World of tanks most certainly does not. So why are we arguing? Show me the persistence. Nothing wrong with it being a multiplayer shooter. A lot of people like those types of games,
With all the existing and upcoming MMO's out there, there is plenty to discuss on this site without adding in games that are not MMO's
Level Progression system needs improvement. Such as you are never going to be attached to any tank crew as you have no point progressing them with your tank. Also learning new tanks does not leave any attachment as its more a collect them all affair.
Room setup also could use improvement, but the speed at which games start is impressive.
As far as twitch based games come, its definetly impressive. I would say more impressive then modern FPS like Modern Warfare 2.