Bill, did you realize that the thing you've tested is a particular functionallity of the whole game?
That thing you've experienced is called a "random battle" and it seems it's a part o a much more wider game according to the game developers and a lot of interviews. From historical missions to actually take care of an rather intresting strategic "clan war" PvP area.
Anyhow it's pretty absurd that you guys in the community base the whole "name tagging" of a game just because you've tested a core componet of the game "tank battles" including "balance", "video engine issues", "server stress". You knwo the things you ussually test on a beta...Oh wait, it's a beta! *doh*, now. Bill, did you expect to play a released game...or it is just not a mmo because it just does not follow the "nowadays" way. Pfff, i would expect more journalism and less fanatism?
I would guess that before anyone from this community write such a shallow and "just not quite true" article would have to research a little and swim in the forums of the game, reading news concerning the actual development state of it, etc etc... oh wait that's called *shocker* investigative journalism and it actually include researching.
And i migth say that this is the first time i read something on this web-page (not couting forums) that seriously dissapointed me.
For all I know they "plan" to add persistent element and "massive interaction" (read - trading) later.
As it is now it's less of an mmo then diablo 2:
-you grind
-you evolve your combat strength
-you cant play with more than 31(if memory serves) other players at a given time
-With exception of direct effect on your combat strength (and that of your opponent) nothing that you do in a battle matters beyond the scope of that battle.
In WoT... what you did affects up to 31 player for around 10-20 minutes + slightly impacts their finances and research (which is call exp. in there).
Even D2 had more than that.
If we complicate battlefield to try and make money out of it by making people grind for and/or spend cash on their loadouts we'd land about as close to an MMO as WoT currently is.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, but my verdict is - that's called MMO so that people would ask less questions as to why they are supposed to pay for grinding in an simple MP game.
I dunno about international testing but from what I've seen and heard in Russia the game isn't even close to being ripe and they are taking money for it already... Heck, they were pre-selling premium accounts before the testing was finished.
Also take a look at their trailers - those guys repeatedly made fun of other genres (realistic simulators, fantasy RPGs, even EVE) those trailers are somewhat funny but they are also plainly rude. And this is from someone who haven't even made something worth mentioning yet. IMHO they need to stuff their ambitions where no one can see them and do some good old-fashioned decent work for a change.
WoT has got some funny PR people. And i like the idea of blending RTS elements with MMORPG. I enjoy the stabs at other games. I havent seen it implemented yet. And lately these supposed Hybrid games are great in ideas but short on execution (GA and APB). This smells like another one. I could be wrong but...Careful where you step and check your shoes when you come inside.
This game involves level upgrades and equipment, it will also involve other minor tweaks to your tanks, thus developers in almost any part of the world want to consider this game and similar ones to be a full MMORPG< but since its not really the case they tone down the genres to MMO or MMOFPS. But all in all this game does have upgrades and costumization options which is the heart of any RPG, and thats what makes thhis game fun.
WoT has got some funny PR people. And i like the idea of blending RTS elements with MMORPG. I enjoy the stabs at other games. I havent seen it implemented yet. And lately these supposed Hybrid games are great in ideas but short on execution (GA and APB). This smells like another one. I could be wrong but...Careful where you step and check your shoes when you come inside.
get a beta key, and see this game for yourself, its alot of fun. It doesnt promise you what it cant deliver like APB and Crimecraft with huge cities where tehres nothing to do but missions.
What I think is that WOT isn't really a Massive Multiplayer Online it's just a Multiplayer Online First/Third Person Shooter even thought it can have a 100v100 Battle. Also it doesn't consider itself a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game or Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because the game doesn't have any level up system, its just a tier level limit.
What I think is that WOT isn't really a Massive Multiplayer Online it's just a Multiplayer Online First/Third Person Shooter even thought it can have a 100v100 Battle. Also it doesn't consider itself a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game or Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because the game doesn't have any level up system, its just a tier level limit.
APB is not on here but WW2 On line is. When the clan system comes in to WoT I don't see much of a difference.
APB has been on here for a long time now.
-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.-
Finally!!! The staff of MMORPG are FINALLY omitting games that attempt to claim the "MMO" title but are actually more than 80% Matchmaking games.
Other games that require your attention to be removed and are NEARLY identicle to World of Tanks include:
-Huxley Online
-Global Agenda
etc etc...
ANY game that does not have a persistant world in which more than 200players CAN reside and INTERACT with each other is NOT an MMO of ANY sort. Trying to support the fact that Global Agenda is an "MMOFPS" would be like trying to defend the argument that Call of Duty is an MMOFPS, and you will be LAUGHED at if you tried to do so.
If you're not an old MMO player I could see how you can confuse what an MMO is considering what WoW has done to the genre.
-Faded
ps: typing this on a shitty computer that's not mine atm . Sorry for mispellings if any, hard to see.
going to have to remove STO too -- all instanced zones, can't fit 200 ppl in any of them...
And don't even THINK of adding Cryptic's Neverwinter disaster to the site.
-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're limiting your definition of a MMO. It's massively multiplayer online. That doesn't mean everyone has to be in a persistant world. Take for instance: Star Trek Online. By your same definition, it is NOT a MMO. Everything is instanced.
Also, your comparison with games like TF2, Call of Duty, and Battlefield are off. This isn't a box game.
I would hope for more accurate and less biased reviews of games in the future from this site.
Agreed with many- mmorpg.com should contain information about mmorpgs only. It might be a good investment to buy the domain 'mmofps.com', however (if it isnt taken, of course)
This site could use a good clense if you catch my meaning
this page needs a clear declaration of what they need to be checked to be an mmo. but this wont happen, because you dont want to loose members. so go on, evolve more into a joke page and please all members so you can gain more weight in negotiations with developers and publishers about promoting their games....
just like gamesspy and all the other pages that are paid to please the industry not the player.
mmorpg = massive muliplayer online role playing game
so really anything with massives muliplayer base is a mmo that includes games like cod mmorpg was the term they used sheerly because loads played it and rpg is the term for pretty much anygame
so argue over weather it is or isn't a mmo is pointless and seeing as it is still in beta it would be the smarter option to give it time until it realises before making any judgement on weather or not it is quallified
and sheerly having it on here will not do any harm to mmorpg nor any harm to wargaming.net
but my opinion it doesn't matter if it is a mmo or not if you have tried it and had fun if you did you then keep playing if you didn't then dont pay any attention too it again
The game is a MMOFPS with rpg elements. mmorpg.com really can't decide what's a MMO or what's not if they don't use their heads.
Basic definition is what it is: Massively Multiplayer. There are over a thousand players connected at one time to ONE server.
Doh where is the persistence? Right there is none, hence not a MMO period! They did say they have some changes coming down the road that might change that, but at the moment it just is not a MMO.
The game is a MMOFPS with rpg elements. mmorpg.com really can't decide what's a MMO or what's not if they don't use their heads.
Basic definition is what it is: Massively Multiplayer. There are over a thousand players connected at one time to ONE server.
Then I suppose we should add Pogo.com games and every online poker site here as well?
Originally posted by si1foo
mmorpg = massive muliplayer online role playing game
so really anything with massives muliplayer base is a mmo that includes games like cod mmorpg was the term they used sheerly because loads played it and rpg is the term for pretty much anygame
And here we have an example of why newer rpgs suck most of the time, they're made by people who share the same ignorance of what the term means.
-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.-
there will be persistent territory that clans will fight over and capture. yes, this feature is not in the beata now, but it definitely is coming. It will be as much an MMO as Global Agenda is.
The game is a MMOFPS with rpg elements. mmorpg.com really can't decide what's a MMO or what's not if they don't use their heads.
Basic definition is what it is: Massively Multiplayer. There are over a thousand players connected at one time to ONE server.
Then I suppose we should add Pogo.com games and every online poker site here as well?
Originally posted by si1foo
mmorpg = massive muliplayer online role playing game
so really anything with massives muliplayer base is a mmo that includes games like cod mmorpg was the term they used sheerly because loads played it and rpg is the term for pretty much anygame
And here we have an example of why newer rpgs suck most of the time, they're made by people who share the same ignorance of what the term means.
role playing game is were you play a role in a team or in a battle all mmos you are playing a role like healer tank so it is the exact same for world of tanks for there are long range support damage dealers
so dont thing i dont know what the term means and the reason most new mmos suck is because they are either aiming for the wrong market or they are made poorly there are hardcore and casual gamers in mmos hardcore is anyone who intends to spend alot of time playing casual when they have a 1 or 2 too kill
Excuse me while I chortle at such an inane attempt to achieve persistence. They don't even understand what the word means in the genre. But in your defense, MMORPG already covers games that really fall far short of what persistence really means.
Thing is, MMORPG.com is bloated with all the poor quality MMOG (no RPG) that shouldn't be there at all, IF MMORPG.COM really cares about the RPG part.
In my opinion, RPG part is too limiting nowadays, MMO games aren't niche anymore - and there's almost no trace of roleplaying in most popular MMO games today.
What is even worse, MANY of popular "MMO" games are lobby-type and most likely won't EVER be removed off the mmorpg.com list of games.
So, MMORPG.com, why are you even considering removing this QUALITY game (I'm amazed that game of this polish is F2P, honestly) and not even considering removing many other games which are really badly done and hardly popular?
Comments
Always good to see something new in online play, it may not be a MMO, but MMO's are not the only way people play online these days.
Not defending the game in anyway. But.
Bill, did you realize that the thing you've tested is a particular functionallity of the whole game?
That thing you've experienced is called a "random battle" and it seems it's a part o a much more wider game according to the game developers and a lot of interviews. From historical missions to actually take care of an rather intresting strategic "clan war" PvP area.
Anyhow it's pretty absurd that you guys in the community base the whole "name tagging" of a game just because you've tested a core componet of the game "tank battles" including "balance", "video engine issues", "server stress". You knwo the things you ussually test on a beta...Oh wait, it's a beta! *doh*, now. Bill, did you expect to play a released game...or it is just not a mmo because it just does not follow the "nowadays" way. Pfff, i would expect more journalism and less fanatism?
I would guess that before anyone from this community write such a shallow and "just not quite true" article would have to research a little and swim in the forums of the game, reading news concerning the actual development state of it, etc etc... oh wait that's called *shocker* investigative journalism and it actually include researching.
And i migth say that this is the first time i read something on this web-page (not couting forums) that seriously dissapointed me.
For all I know they "plan" to add persistent element and "massive interaction" (read - trading) later.
As it is now it's less of an mmo then diablo 2:
-you grind
-you evolve your combat strength
-you cant play with more than 31(if memory serves) other players at a given time
-With exception of direct effect on your combat strength (and that of your opponent) nothing that you do in a battle matters beyond the scope of that battle.
In WoT... what you did affects up to 31 player for around 10-20 minutes + slightly impacts their finances and research (which is call exp. in there).
Even D2 had more than that.
If we complicate battlefield to try and make money out of it by making people grind for and/or spend cash on their loadouts we'd land about as close to an MMO as WoT currently is.
I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, but my verdict is - that's called MMO so that people would ask less questions as to why they are supposed to pay for grinding in an simple MP game.
I dunno about international testing but from what I've seen and heard in Russia the game isn't even close to being ripe and they are taking money for it already... Heck, they were pre-selling premium accounts before the testing was finished.
Also take a look at their trailers - those guys repeatedly made fun of other genres (realistic simulators, fantasy RPGs, even EVE) those trailers are somewhat funny but they are also plainly rude. And this is from someone who haven't even made something worth mentioning yet. IMHO they need to stuff their ambitions where no one can see them and do some good old-fashioned decent work for a change.
WoT has got some funny PR people. And i like the idea of blending RTS elements with MMORPG. I enjoy the stabs at other games. I havent seen it implemented yet. And lately these supposed Hybrid games are great in ideas but short on execution (GA and APB). This smells like another one. I could be wrong but...Careful where you step and check your shoes when you come inside.
This game involves level upgrades and equipment, it will also involve other minor tweaks to your tanks, thus developers in almost any part of the world want to consider this game and similar ones to be a full MMORPG< but since its not really the case they tone down the genres to MMO or MMOFPS. But all in all this game does have upgrades and costumization options which is the heart of any RPG, and thats what makes thhis game fun.
get a beta key, and see this game for yourself, its alot of fun. It doesnt promise you what it cant deliver like APB and Crimecraft with huge cities where tehres nothing to do but missions.
What I think is that WOT isn't really a Massive Multiplayer Online it's just a Multiplayer Online First/Third Person Shooter even thought it can have a 100v100 Battle. Also it doesn't consider itself a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game or Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game because the game doesn't have any level up system, its just a tier level limit.
level up or tier is exactly same thing.
APB has been on here for a long time now.
-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.-
Why remove WoT while you got games like APB, GA (not yet an MMO), GW 1, COH, STO here? :x
If you remove such a game you should remove them all and not only who didnt pay you to be on the list ...
EvE doors
See the best doors on EvE-on!
going to have to remove STO too -- all instanced zones, can't fit 200 ppl in any of them...
And don't even THINK of adding Cryptic's Neverwinter disaster to the site.
-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're limiting your definition of a MMO. It's massively multiplayer online. That doesn't mean everyone has to be in a persistant world. Take for instance: Star Trek Online. By your same definition, it is NOT a MMO. Everything is instanced.
Also, your comparison with games like TF2, Call of Duty, and Battlefield are off. This isn't a box game.
I would hope for more accurate and less biased reviews of games in the future from this site.
Agreed with many- mmorpg.com should contain information about mmorpgs only. It might be a good investment to buy the domain 'mmofps.com', however (if it isnt taken, of course)
This site could use a good clense if you catch my meaning
"Reading, Scrolling....scrolling fast......skipping to the end.
Who cares what you call it. I like it. That is all that matters.
Have a happy day people.
this page needs a clear declaration of what they need to be checked to be an mmo. but this wont happen, because you dont want to loose members. so go on, evolve more into a joke page and please all members so you can gain more weight in negotiations with developers and publishers about promoting their games....
just like gamesspy and all the other pages that are paid to please the industry not the player.
mmorpg = massive muliplayer online role playing game
so really anything with massives muliplayer base is a mmo that includes games like cod mmorpg was the term they used sheerly because loads played it and rpg is the term for pretty much anygame
so argue over weather it is or isn't a mmo is pointless and seeing as it is still in beta it would be the smarter option to give it time until it realises before making any judgement on weather or not it is quallified
and sheerly having it on here will not do any harm to mmorpg nor any harm to wargaming.net
but my opinion it doesn't matter if it is a mmo or not if you have tried it and had fun if you did you then keep playing if you didn't then dont pay any attention too it again
The game is a MMOFPS with rpg elements. mmorpg.com really can't decide what's a MMO or what's not if they don't use their heads.
Basic definition is what it is: Massively Multiplayer. There are over a thousand players connected at one time to ONE server.
Doh where is the persistence? Right there is none, hence not a MMO period! They did say they have some changes coming down the road that might change that, but at the moment it just is not a MMO.
Then I suppose we should add Pogo.com games and every online poker site here as well?
And here we have an example of why newer rpgs suck most of the time, they're made by people who share the same ignorance of what the term means.
-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.-
here's a thread with devs talking about clan war mode:
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/61-clan-wars-mode/
there will be persistent territory that clans will fight over and capture. yes, this feature is not in the beata now, but it definitely is coming. It will be as much an MMO as Global Agenda is.
role playing game is were you play a role in a team or in a battle all mmos you are playing a role like healer tank so it is the exact same for world of tanks for there are long range support damage dealers
so dont thing i dont know what the term means and the reason most new mmos suck is because they are either aiming for the wrong market or they are made poorly there are hardcore and casual gamers in mmos hardcore is anyone who intends to spend alot of time playing casual when they have a 1 or 2 too kill
official post on clan wars (persistent territory gain/loss):
http://game.worldoftanks.com/news/general_news/clan_wars_details_revealed
Excuse me while I chortle at such an inane attempt to achieve persistence. They don't even understand what the word means in the genre. But in your defense, MMORPG already covers games that really fall far short of what persistence really means.
Thing is, MMORPG.com is bloated with all the poor quality MMOG (no RPG) that shouldn't be there at all, IF MMORPG.COM really cares about the RPG part.
In my opinion, RPG part is too limiting nowadays, MMO games aren't niche anymore - and there's almost no trace of roleplaying in most popular MMO games today.
What is even worse, MANY of popular "MMO" games are lobby-type and most likely won't EVER be removed off the mmorpg.com list of games.
So, MMORPG.com, why are you even considering removing this QUALITY game (I'm amazed that game of this polish is F2P, honestly) and not even considering removing many other games which are really badly done and hardly popular?
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs