I am sure that we can all agree that WoW and FarmVille are differnt types of games. However they both allow for large amounts of players to interact with each other online. This is the root of the MMO definition
How do farmville players interact with each other? I've seen my friend playing a lot of times and I never saw him play with someone else. The most he did was going to another player's farm and click a button to kill rats. Is this massive multiplayer interaction for you? Really? Or do you call interaction the chat, which btw is a feature of the facebook not the game itself. I brought the example of settlers 7. That game allows you to chat with other players, get help from them and even play with or against 4(I think) of them. Would you call this game a mmo too?
I agree that there is no clear definition (which is the point). And can point to your debate about chat for examples.
If chat is the requirement, does removing chat, or using a different system for it make it NOT an MMO. i.e. if you use ventrilo in WoW is it no longer an MMO?
The total lack of clarity about this is what makes it impossible for anyone to really argue that X or Y is not an MMO. It is such a generic term that it covers just about everything...
In fact, if we consider this thread a game... then is this site an MMO?
If we were in the process of defining what F2P means...
Not we, you are. You are inventing new, flawed and disfunctional definitions.
I have already pointed out and addressed your flaws and explained the determination process enough.
Have fun.
Ok. I admit it.. I am doing just this... but I am also time travelling, and doing this 10 years ago.
I gave you a simple example of this being used in 2001, yet you are stating that everyone has been wrong since then.. and no one noticed, except now that you are here, you will tell us what we really meant.
P.S. I have also subverted the interwebs with my propaganda.
I agree that there is no clear definition (which is the point). And can point to your debate about chat for examples.
If chat is the requirement, does removing chat, or using a different system for it make it NOT an MMO. i.e. if you use ventrilo in WoW is it no longer an MMO?
The total lack of clarity about this is what makes it impossible for anyone to really argue that X or Y is not an MMO. It is such a generic term that it covers just about everything...
In fact, if we consider this thread a game... then is this site an MMO?
(i.e. the term MMO sucks because it is so vague)
It is vague for you maybe. Who the hell thinks that chat is what makes a game a mmo? I can pick up mario, mod it so mirc will show ingame and vuala, I have a mmo? It's about players playing together the game. It's not about chat, is not about a leaderboard showing the points of your massive amount of friends. It's just about playing together with a massive amount of peoples in the same world. Those who wants to make the definition vague are usually those developers that wants to call their lobby online game a mmo so it justifies a sub fee or some other type of transaction.
I agree that there is no clear definition (which is the point). And can point to your debate about chat for examples.
If chat is the requirement, does removing chat, or using a different system for it make it NOT an MMO. i.e. if you use ventrilo in WoW is it no longer an MMO?
The total lack of clarity about this is what makes it impossible for anyone to really argue that X or Y is not an MMO. It is such a generic term that it covers just about everything...
In fact, if we consider this thread a game... then is this site an MMO?
(i.e. the term MMO sucks because it is so vague)
It is vague for you maybe. Who the hell thinks that chat is what makes a game a mmo? I can pick up mario, mod it so mirc will show ingame and vuala, I have a mmo? It's about players playing together the game. It's not about chat, is not about a leaderboard showing the points of your massive amount of friends. It's just about playing together with a massive amount of peoples in the same world. Those who wants to make the definition vague are usually those developers that wants to call their lobby online game a mmo so it justifies a sub fee or some other type of transaction.
Well, the origin of the MMO is a long one, and one that has a history. MMO's began before simultaneos play did, as there were MMO's that allowed players to interact, but in a turn based mode.
As for the vagueness... well you have personally introduced two unique elements to your definition. First you made chat a requirement, now you have stated that you have to be friends. Neither of these would fit most standard definitions. So, this is but one example of how the defintion gets confused.
Lets start with a simple example.
Chess is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. As it only has two players, it is still not an MMO (just an OG)
Now lets use Monopoly as an example. Play it online and it is clearly an online game. It is also clearly a multiplayer online game (but not necessarily massive).
Lets go one more, Bingo. It is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. It is clearly a multiplayer game, and it could easily be massive.
None of this has to do with chat, or with friends. It has to do with three different things:
Is it a game
Is it online
It is multiplayer
Is it massive
Each of those has different defintions, and to be an MMOG, it should meet all four. The problem is that a lot of things can do this... because they are very broad categories.
I agree that there is no clear definition (which is the point). And can point to your debate about chat for examples.
If chat is the requirement, does removing chat, or using a different system for it make it NOT an MMO. i.e. if you use ventrilo in WoW is it no longer an MMO?
The total lack of clarity about this is what makes it impossible for anyone to really argue that X or Y is not an MMO. It is such a generic term that it covers just about everything...
In fact, if we consider this thread a game... then is this site an MMO?
(i.e. the term MMO sucks because it is so vague)
It is vague for you maybe. Who the hell thinks that chat is what makes a game a mmo? I can pick up mario, mod it so mirc will show ingame and vuala, I have a mmo? It's about players playing together the game. It's not about chat, is not about a leaderboard showing the points of your massive amount of friends. It's just about playing together with a massive amount of peoples in the same world. Those who wants to make the definition vague are usually those developers that wants to call their lobby online game a mmo so it justifies a sub fee or some other type of transaction.
Well, the origin of the MMO is a long one, and one that has a history. MMO's began before simultaneos play did, as there were MMO's that allowed players to interact, but in a turn based mode.
As for the vagueness... well you have personally introduced two unique elements to your definition. First you made chat a requirement, now you have stated that you have to be friends. Neither of these would fit most standard definitions. So, this is but one example of how the defintion gets confused.
Lets start with a simple example.
Chess is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. As it only has two players, it is still not an MMO (just an OG)
Now lets use Monopoly as an example. Play it online and it is clearly an online game. It is also clearly a multiplayer online game (but not necessarily massive).
Lets go one more, Bingo. It is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. It is clearly a multiplayer game, and it could easily be massive.
None of this has to do with chat, or with friends. It has to do with three different things:
Is it a game
Is it online
It is multiplayer
Is it massive
Each of those has different defintions, and to be an MMOG, it should meet all four. The problem is that a lot of things can do this... because they are very broad categories.
Where did I made chat a requirement? Actually I was stating the opposite. And neither did I say anything about you have to be friends. Did you misread my replies or purposely shifting the conversation?
Where did I made chat a requirement? Actually I was stating the opposite. And neither did I say anything about you have to be friends. Did you misread my replies or purposely shifting the conversation?
You started with this:
Originally posted by Edli
Or do you call interaction the chat, which btw is a feature of the facebook not the game itself.
By using chat as a definition of MMO (as part of the interaction) you muddied the waters. As for the friends, my mistake. I missed a 'not'. However, this brings up your debate style. You seem to be bringing in elements not discussed, simply to state that they are not part of the discussion. Why bring them in at all, unless it is to make this less clear?
What I care about is having a high quality game to play in. That, unfortunately, does not mean a game meant for the average person. There are people that describe questing in World of Warcraft as "hard". These people want a different experience than I do - and I think F2P games are generally built to suit their needs better. I could care less whether they have 75% of the market share and bring in more money (which puts the lie to "F2P", something the astute have always pointed out).
I want my game to be successful enough that the company that runs it remains interested in keeping it alive and well. If said publisher hits the proverbial jackpot that's all good, but my experience with WoW is that it doesn't necessarily buy you anything more as a player than if the game does 1/10 the business. Bottom line, at the time of its release, and judging by what I've seen to date, EQII was a much better update of EQ than Cataclysm is of World of Warcraft. (Yes, one's a new game and the other is an expansion pack, but the first came after 5 years of the original and the Xpak after 6; it's time for an evolution in WoW and Cataclysm appears to be a nice upgrade, at best.) But I digress.
Major publishers aren't going to stop funding good P2P MMORPGs in favor of weak F2P games, just as the major motion picture studios don't just put out schlock-formula films (I know I just said F2P games are cheap and low quality, forgive me, they aren't all that way, I'm trying to speak to the fears of the P2P MMORPG player). The most ingenious games will likely still have the same level of difficuly getting developed (unfortunately, dev costs for MMOs are not as easy to reduce as it is these days to make relatively inexpensive movies - at least in terms of developing a game that isn't outdated by the time you get an alpha-level product up and running).
I do think the study is likely flawed, and Richard said he had misgivings himself (but probably trusts it more than I do), but in the end, it matters little to those of us who really care about good MMORPGs.
I think it's interesting that the majority of players that post in these forums are P2P supporters and not F2P players, given studies like these. It certainly highlights the concept many of you put forth - the games included in this study shouldn't be mixed together; they clearly don't speak to the same audience, or we would have far more of them coming to this site and posting their opinion in support of their type of game.
We have to remember that we are still in the early stage of MMOG development. Think of movies in the first generation of their development. We have lot to look forward to my friends!
Have played: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Horizons, Everquest2, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall
Where did I made chat a requirement? Actually I was stating the opposite. And neither did I say anything about you have to be friends. Did you misread my replies or purposely shifting the conversation?
You started with this:
Originally posted by Edli
Or do you call interaction the chat, which btw is a feature of the facebook not the game itself.
By using chat as a definition of MMO (as part of the interaction) you muddied the waters. As for the friends, my mistake. I missed a 'not'. However, this brings up your debate style. You seem to be bringing in elements not discussed, simply to state that they are not part of the discussion. Why bring them in at all, unless it is to make this less clear?
Why didn't you show my entire post? Or better why didn't you read the entire post. I asked you how do farmville players interact with each other since you said they do and interaction is the root of the mmo definition therefore farmville is a mmo. I said farmville players do not really interact with each other unless you consider chatting an interactive feature enough to call it a mmo which for me it isn't.
Comments
I agree that there is no clear definition (which is the point). And can point to your debate about chat for examples.
If chat is the requirement, does removing chat, or using a different system for it make it NOT an MMO. i.e. if you use ventrilo in WoW is it no longer an MMO?
The total lack of clarity about this is what makes it impossible for anyone to really argue that X or Y is not an MMO. It is such a generic term that it covers just about everything...
In fact, if we consider this thread a game... then is this site an MMO?
(i.e. the term MMO sucks because it is so vague)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_Multiplayer_Online
Ok. I admit it.. I am doing just this... but I am also time travelling, and doing this 10 years ago.
I gave you a simple example of this being used in 2001, yet you are stating that everyone has been wrong since then.. and no one noticed, except now that you are here, you will tell us what we really meant.
P.S. I have also subverted the interwebs with my propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2P
It is vague for you maybe. Who the hell thinks that chat is what makes a game a mmo? I can pick up mario, mod it so mirc will show ingame and vuala, I have a mmo? It's about players playing together the game. It's not about chat, is not about a leaderboard showing the points of your massive amount of friends. It's just about playing together with a massive amount of peoples in the same world. Those who wants to make the definition vague are usually those developers that wants to call their lobby online game a mmo so it justifies a sub fee or some other type of transaction.
Well, the origin of the MMO is a long one, and one that has a history. MMO's began before simultaneos play did, as there were MMO's that allowed players to interact, but in a turn based mode.
As for the vagueness... well you have personally introduced two unique elements to your definition. First you made chat a requirement, now you have stated that you have to be friends. Neither of these would fit most standard definitions. So, this is but one example of how the defintion gets confused.
Lets start with a simple example.
Chess is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. As it only has two players, it is still not an MMO (just an OG)
Now lets use Monopoly as an example. Play it online and it is clearly an online game. It is also clearly a multiplayer online game (but not necessarily massive).
Lets go one more, Bingo. It is a game. Play it online and it is an online game. It is clearly a multiplayer game, and it could easily be massive.
None of this has to do with chat, or with friends. It has to do with three different things:
Is it a game
Is it online
It is multiplayer
Is it massive
Each of those has different defintions, and to be an MMOG, it should meet all four. The problem is that a lot of things can do this... because they are very broad categories.
Where did I made chat a requirement? Actually I was stating the opposite. And neither did I say anything about you have to be friends. Did you misread my replies or purposely shifting the conversation?
You started with this:
By using chat as a definition of MMO (as part of the interaction) you muddied the waters. As for the friends, my mistake. I missed a 'not'. However, this brings up your debate style. You seem to be bringing in elements not discussed, simply to state that they are not part of the discussion. Why bring them in at all, unless it is to make this less clear?
AS an MMORPG player, why would I really care?
What I care about is having a high quality game to play in. That, unfortunately, does not mean a game meant for the average person. There are people that describe questing in World of Warcraft as "hard". These people want a different experience than I do - and I think F2P games are generally built to suit their needs better. I could care less whether they have 75% of the market share and bring in more money (which puts the lie to "F2P", something the astute have always pointed out).
I want my game to be successful enough that the company that runs it remains interested in keeping it alive and well. If said publisher hits the proverbial jackpot that's all good, but my experience with WoW is that it doesn't necessarily buy you anything more as a player than if the game does 1/10 the business. Bottom line, at the time of its release, and judging by what I've seen to date, EQII was a much better update of EQ than Cataclysm is of World of Warcraft. (Yes, one's a new game and the other is an expansion pack, but the first came after 5 years of the original and the Xpak after 6; it's time for an evolution in WoW and Cataclysm appears to be a nice upgrade, at best.) But I digress.
Major publishers aren't going to stop funding good P2P MMORPGs in favor of weak F2P games, just as the major motion picture studios don't just put out schlock-formula films (I know I just said F2P games are cheap and low quality, forgive me, they aren't all that way, I'm trying to speak to the fears of the P2P MMORPG player). The most ingenious games will likely still have the same level of difficuly getting developed (unfortunately, dev costs for MMOs are not as easy to reduce as it is these days to make relatively inexpensive movies - at least in terms of developing a game that isn't outdated by the time you get an alpha-level product up and running).
I do think the study is likely flawed, and Richard said he had misgivings himself (but probably trusts it more than I do), but in the end, it matters little to those of us who really care about good MMORPGs.
I think it's interesting that the majority of players that post in these forums are P2P supporters and not F2P players, given studies like these. It certainly highlights the concept many of you put forth - the games included in this study shouldn't be mixed together; they clearly don't speak to the same audience, or we would have far more of them coming to this site and posting their opinion in support of their type of game.
We have to remember that we are still in the early stage of MMOG development. Think of movies in the first generation of their development. We have lot to look forward to my friends!
Have played: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Horizons, Everquest2, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall
Why didn't you show my entire post? Or better why didn't you read the entire post. I asked you how do farmville players interact with each other since you said they do and interaction is the root of the mmo definition therefore farmville is a mmo. I said farmville players do not really interact with each other unless you consider chatting an interactive feature enough to call it a mmo which for me it isn't.