"MMOs now are almost indistinguishable from standard games. And if nothing puts them apart, the definition ceases to hold any meaning."
I disagree entirely, MMO stand for Massively Multiplayer Online (generally game follows this) We used to say Diablo wasn't an MMO and that UO was because of Persistant worlds. However, now we know better, an MMO is just any game thats online and massively multiplayer, there are lots of subdivisions as to what other similar games are. For instance an MMORTS MMORPG or MMOFPS all have different rulesets.
You are adding meaning to a word that has enough as it is.
So what you are saying, is... what exactly?
MMO does not get defined by persistence? What then? "Massively" does not make a good qualifier, because standard FPS games have reached numbers, that go into the MMO realm. Joint Operations had 128 players for instance. Many others have 64, and I am sure, that if these standard games wanted to, they could make 256 or more.
So if you qualify only on amount of players, then MMO already has lost all meaning.
"MMOs now are almost indistinguishable from standard games. And if nothing puts them apart, the definition ceases to hold any meaning."
I disagree entirely, MMO stand for Massively Multiplayer Online (generally game follows this) We used to say Diablo wasn't an MMO and that UO was because of Persistant worlds. However, now we know better, an MMO is just any game thats online and massively multiplayer, there are lots of subdivisions as to what other similar games are. For instance an MMORTS MMORPG or MMOFPS all have different rulesets.
You are adding meaning to a word that has enough as it is.
So what you are saying, is... what exactly?
MMO does not get defined by persistence? What then? "Massively" does not make a good qualifier, because standard FPS games have reached numbers, that go into the MMO realm. Joint Operations had 128 players for instance. Many others have 64, and I am sure, that if these standard games wanted to, they could make 256 or more.
So if you qualify only on amount of players, then MMO already has lost all meaning.
No, it hasn't, its qualifier is number of players.
It has meaning. Its meaning is in the words, I don't see where your confusion is.
For instance, Democracy might have a lot of meanings to the individual other than its actual meaning, however that does not mean that the words ACTUAL function and meaning has changed if it means something diferent to you, it is still at its root Demo, being people and cracy being power. Power to the people. A government ruled by the people.
You can tack on other ideals and concepts to the word that are extranious and not always true like "Patriotisim" or "Truth Justice and the American way!" however these are meaning concepts that brach off the origional idea, they are not actually defined by or redefining the meaning of the word itself.
I can group with my friends when i want to. And when i want a quick dungeon group, i can use the DF tool .. win-win.
There is a reason why Rift is having this feature. It is WIDELY popular in WOW and obviously noticed by other game developers.
It also deprives options. If everybody uses this new option, there will be no people travelling the world, making the world void of life, thus depriving those, who want a vibrant world with meaning.
Every option in a game has to be weighed carefully.
IMO these Dungeon Finders reduce these so-called MMOs to standard multiplayer-games, serving as a lobby.
I can group with my friends when i want to. And when i want a quick dungeon group, i can use the DF tool .. win-win.
There is a reason why Rift is having this feature. It is WIDELY popular in WOW and obviously noticed by other game developers.
It also deprives options. If everybody uses this new option, there will be no people travelling the world, making the world void of life, thus depriving those, who want a vibrant world with meaning.
Every option in a game has to be weighed carefully.
IMO these Dungeon Finders reduce these so-called MMOs to standard multiplayer-games, serving as a lobby.
Again, for the 5th time, if a game has a mechanic that makes players WANT to play in the big open world to actually do things, IE rifts, then your concern about the world being merely a lobby game is moot.
"MMOs now are almost indistinguishable from standard games. And if nothing puts them apart, the definition ceases to hold any meaning."
I disagree entirely, MMO stand for Massively Multiplayer Online (generally game follows this) We used to say Diablo wasn't an MMO and that UO was because of Persistant worlds. However, now we know better, an MMO is just any game thats online and massively multiplayer, there are lots of subdivisions as to what other similar games are. For instance an MMORTS MMORPG or MMOFPS all have different rulesets.
You are adding meaning to a word that has enough as it is.
So what you are saying, is... what exactly?
MMO does not get defined by persistence? What then? "Massively" does not make a good qualifier, because standard FPS games have reached numbers, that go into the MMO realm. Joint Operations had 128 players for instance. Many others have 64, and I am sure, that if these standard games wanted to, they could make 256 or more.
So if you qualify only on amount of players, then MMO already has lost all meaning.
No, it hasn't, its qualifier is number of players.
It has meaning. Its meaning is in the words, I don't see where your confusion is.
For instance, Democracy might have a lot of meanings to the individual other than its actual meaning, however that does not mean that the words ACTUAL function and meaning has changed if it means something diferent to you, it is still at its root Demo, being people and cracy being power. Power to the people. A government ruled by the people.
You can tack on other ideals and concepts to the word that are extranious and not always true like "Patriotisim" or "Truth Justice and the American way!" however these are meaning concepts that brach off the origional idea, they are not actually defined by or redefining the meaning of the word itself.
So what amount of players would qualify a game as an MMO?
"MMOs now are almost indistinguishable from standard games. And if nothing puts them apart, the definition ceases to hold any meaning."
I disagree entirely, MMO stand for Massively Multiplayer Online (generally game follows this) We used to say Diablo wasn't an MMO and that UO was because of Persistant worlds. However, now we know better, an MMO is just any game thats online and massively multiplayer, there are lots of subdivisions as to what other similar games are. For instance an MMORTS MMORPG or MMOFPS all have different rulesets.
You are adding meaning to a word that has enough as it is.
So what you are saying, is... what exactly?
MMO does not get defined by persistence? What then? "Massively" does not make a good qualifier, because standard FPS games have reached numbers, that go into the MMO realm. Joint Operations had 128 players for instance. Many others have 64, and I am sure, that if these standard games wanted to, they could make 256 or more.
So if you qualify only on amount of players, then MMO already has lost all meaning.
No, it hasn't, its qualifier is number of players.
It has meaning. Its meaning is in the words, I don't see where your confusion is.
For instance, Democracy might have a lot of meanings to the individual other than its actual meaning, however that does not mean that the words ACTUAL function and meaning has changed if it means something diferent to you, it is still at its root Demo, being people and cracy being power. Power to the people. A government ruled by the people.
You can tack on other ideals and concepts to the word that are extranious and not always true like "Patriotisim" or "Truth Justice and the American way!" however these are meaning concepts that brach off the origional idea, they are not actually defined by or redefining the meaning of the word itself.
So what amount of players would qualify a game as an MMO?
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously.
So I'll go with that.
Edit: It also says it must include atleast "one" persistant world. As most games we call MMO's feature both
1. Hundreds or Thousands of players playing simultaniously.
2. Atleast 1 persistant world.
I'll say Rift is an MMO and that most new games coming out trying to be MMOS are too.
I can group with my friends when i want to. And when i want a quick dungeon group, i can use the DF tool .. win-win.
There is a reason why Rift is having this feature. It is WIDELY popular in WOW and obviously noticed by other game developers.
It also deprives options. If everybody uses this new option, there will be no people travelling the world, making the world void of life, thus depriving those, who want a vibrant world with meaning.
Every option in a game has to be weighed carefully.
IMO these Dungeon Finders reduce these so-called MMOs to standard multiplayer-games, serving as a lobby.
Again, for the 5th time, if a game has a mechanic that makes players WANT to play in the big open world to actually do things, IE rifts, then your concern about the world being merely a lobby game is moot.
Next time you are using that Dungeon Finder in whatever MMO you are playing, ask yourself, if this is any different from Counterstrike, Call of Duty or Battlefield lobbies.
You have just reduced your game to a standard multiplayer game (and I bet you play with fewer players in that instance you get teleported to, than you would in any of the named standard games) - just with a huge grind and worse mechanics.
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously.
I can group with my friends when i want to. And when i want a quick dungeon group, i can use the DF tool .. win-win.
There is a reason why Rift is having this feature. It is WIDELY popular in WOW and obviously noticed by other game developers.
It also deprives options. If everybody uses this new option, there will be no people travelling the world, making the world void of life, thus depriving those, who want a vibrant world with meaning.
Every option in a game has to be weighed carefully.
IMO these Dungeon Finders reduce these so-called MMOs to standard multiplayer-games, serving as a lobby.
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
2) Do most people CARE about it? Nope. In fact, I hate it when the quest zones are too crowded because of kill-stealing. In fact, this is very bad back in the EQ days. You have to group .. but then you have to compete with other groups for kills.
3) If I spend most of my time in dungeons (leveling, gearing up), i care less about what is going on in the quest zones ANYWAY.
The real question is whether a more lobby like design makes MMOs better games. IMHO, a big YES.
Edit: It also says it must include atleast "one" persistant world. As most games we call MMO's feature both
1. Hundreds or Thousands of players playing simultaniously.
2. Atleast 1 persistant world.
I'll say Rift is an MMO and that most new games coming out trying to be MMOS are too.
Your edit came after my last reply.
But BF, CoD or JO lobbies are persistant.
Does that qualify? And what is the difference whether you have a text avatar (as in the lobbies) or a 3D one jumping around a mailbox waiting for the DF to teleport you to an instance, if there is no other meaningful functionality?
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
Edit: It also says it must include atleast "one" persistant world. As most games we call MMO's feature both
1. Hundreds or Thousands of players playing simultaniously.
2. Atleast 1 persistant world.
I'll say Rift is an MMO and that most new games coming out trying to be MMOS are too.
Your edit came after my last reply.
But BF, CoD or JO lobbies are persistant.
Does that qualify? And what is the difference whether you have a text avatar (as in the lobbies) or a 3D one jumping around a mailbox waiting for the DF to teleport you to an instance, if there is no other meaningful functionality?
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will call a "Lobby" a persistant world, I mean I guess we could start by defining what makes a world a world?
Eh don't get me wrong I like persistant worlds, but at the same time I was playing UO I was playing Diablo 1. Which is not an MMO traditionally speaking.
Edit: It also says it must include atleast "one" persistant world. As most games we call MMO's feature both
1. Hundreds or Thousands of players playing simultaniously.
2. Atleast 1 persistant world.
I'll say Rift is an MMO and that most new games coming out trying to be MMOS are too.
Your edit came after my last reply.
But BF, CoD or JO lobbies are persistant.
Does that qualify? And what is the difference whether you have a text avatar (as in the lobbies) or a 3D one jumping around a mailbox waiting for the DF to teleport you to an instance, if there is no other meaningful functionality?
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will call a "Lobby" a persistant world, I mean I guess we could start by defining what makes a world a world?
Eh don't get me wrong I like persistant worlds, but at the same time I was playing UO I was playing Diablo 1. Which is not an MMO traditionally speaking.
If you do little else than chat, equip your character and wait for your next game, then a lobby is just a valid a world as Ironforge, the only difference being 2D vs. 3D.
Originally posted by Rasputin Originally posted by nariusseldon
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's. It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
The problem is the definition of "valid"...as in "I don't like it." Just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid or change the definition of the thing you don't like. I wish people could tell the difference between their opinions of reality and reality as it is displayed to them.
Dungeon finder exists in the largest mmorpg currently running in the Western World. The game play is still Massive, it's still Multiplayer, it's still Online and there is still role playing going on. Dungeon finder is one feature and doesn't make or not make a game an MMOrpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
That is not a circular arguement a circular arguement would be, WoW is an MMO because it has DF, DF is valid in MMO's therefore WoW is an MMO.
The argument you gave is perfectly valid: WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, DF is valid in MMO's.
DF is a tool, as a tool, it is perfectly valid in MMO's. WoW used this quite well, showing that DF is a valid tool in MMO's
Venge
edit - and if an FPS offers hundreds to thousands of players on-line at the same time in a persistant world, it absolutely is an MMO. MMO is an umbrella term, thats it, there are many many types of MMO's, and I do consider GW an MMO (despite what the devs call it) because there is at least one persistant part of it and I'm not alone in that.
Thats it, the only requirements for MMO are lots of people online at the same time and for me a persistant world. But technically even persistant world could be argued.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
The problem is the definition of "valid"...as in "I don't like it." Just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid or change the definition of the thing you don't like. I wish people could tell the difference between their opinions of reality and reality as it is displayed to them.
Dungeon finder exists in the largest mmorpg currently running in the Western World. The game play is still Massive, it's still Multiplayer, it's still Online and there is still role playing going on. Dungeon finder is one feature and doesn't make or not make a game an MMOrpg.
You have to go deeper than to just point to WoW to define MMO (RPG, FPS, RTS doesn't matter).
I just had an argument with Laughing-man, where we tried to get close to a definition. He claimed it was the numbers and one persistent world to bind together the game, where I claimed, that many standard games qualify or are close to qualifying on both - but the persistent world is a 2D lobby with names. But what is the difference, if you don't do much meaningful interactions with the other players in the 3D "lobby" (like Ironforge at endgame is reduced to)?
My point is, that the developers of MMOs have chipped so much away of what made the essence of MMO (IMO a meaningful persistent world, that is the center of gameplay), that the term itself ceases to have any meaning.
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
That is not a circular arguement a circular arguement would be, WoW is an MMO because it has DF, DF is valid in MMO's therefore WoW is an MMO.
The argument you gave is perfectly valid: WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, DF is valid in MMO's.
DF is a tool, as a tool, it is perfectly valid in MMO's. WoW used this quite well, showing that DF is a valid tool in MMO's
Venge
edit - and if an FPS offers hundreds to thousands of players on-line at the same time in a persistant world, it absolutely is an MMO. MMO is an umbrella term, thats it, there are many many types of MMO's, and I do consider GW an MMO (despite what the devs call it) because there is at least one persistant part of it and I'm not alone in that.
Thats it, the only requirements for MMO are lots of people online at the same time and for me a persistant world. But technically even persistant world could be argued.
Can an item not cease to be what it used to be, if you alter it enough? If you put a metal head on a pole, it ceases to be a pole, but is now a hammer.
The same with WoW, a game that is only hanging on by a thread to the definition MMO. Only saving grace is the leveling up, which still takes place in a (mostly empty) persistant world.
WoW ceases to be an MMO at end game. This is in my opinion of course.
Of course if an item changes too much it can legitamately be called something different. However I don't believe WoW is different enough in any way shape or form. That metal head could still be a pole, many flagpoles have metal heads...
Literally everything I did in EQ I can do in WoW, and actually WoW gives me more options. WoW satisfies every single common definition of MMO there is. Persistant world, lots of people, lots of options, lots of content...
What people choose to do in whatever game does not detract from the definition, the definition is what CAN you do. If people choose to just do instances in WoW go for it, but it is still an MMO because it does have everything else.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Of course if an item changes too much it can legitamately be called something different. However I don't believe WoW is different enough in any way shape or form. That metal head could still be a pole, many flagpoles have metal heads...
Literally everything I did in EQ I can do in WoW, and actually WoW gives me more options. WoW satisfies every single common definition of MMO there is. Persistant world, lots of people, lots of options, lots of content...
What people choose to do in whatever game does not detract from the definition, the definition is what CAN you do. If people choose to just do instances in WoW go for it, but it is still an MMO because it does have everything else.
Venge
If the game has been created so the persistant world has no meaning, resulting in it going empty, how is that MMO? There CAN be people there, but there isn't. Because there is no meaningful gameplay there.
It is not real options, if the game is made, so they cannot be meaningfully chosen.
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's. It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
The problem is the definition of "valid"...as in "I don't like it." Just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid or change the definition of the thing you don't like. I wish people could tell the difference between their opinions of reality and reality as it is displayed to them.
Dungeon finder exists in the largest mmorpg currently running in the Western World. The game play is still Massive, it's still Multiplayer, it's still Online and there is still role playing going on. Dungeon finder is one feature and doesn't make or not make a game an MMOrpg.
You have to go deeper than to just point to WoW to define MMO (RPG, FPS, RTS doesn't matter). I just had an argument with Laughing-man, where we tried to get close to a definition. He claimed it was the numbers and one persistent world to bind together the game, where I claimed, that many standard games qualify or are close to qualifying on both - but the persistent world is a 2D lobby with names. But what is the difference, if you don't do much meaningful interactions with the other players in the 3D "lobby" (like Ironforge at endgame is reduced to)? My point is, that the developers of MMOs have chipped so much away of what made the essence of MMO (IMO a meaningful persistent world, that is the center of gameplay), that the term itself ceases to have any meaning.
Well there you go. You are using your own definition of MMORPG and expecting it to mean the same thing for everyone else. You're not a brain in a jar; the rest of the universe, including other people exists. "MMORPG" doesn't have a clearly defined, applies or does not apply in all instances definition. The definition implies some interpretation.
From Wikipedia (dubious source at best, but it comes up in Google): Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world. : define: MMORPG
From PC Magazine: A role playing game on the computer played by many people. An MMORPG differs from a regular computer role playing game because its environment is perpetual. People log in, join the game, take on their role and leave whenever they wish, but the game continues. : PC Magazine : MMORPG
The first definition doesn't mention worlds at all. The second mentions persistence, but it's the persistence of the player's experience, not the world. If your character has a persistent development, even if there is no world, but rather a lobby, then you're playing an MMORPG. Call of Duty could call itself an MMORPG and Team Fortress 2 could call itself an MMORPG because you have persistent character development. When you log back in, your experience continues from where it left off. However, since it's open to some interpretation your opinion could differ from someone else's.
If your argument is that having a Dungeon Finder tool reduces socialization among players, or reduces the feel that the player is in a persistent world, then you may have a point. You would still need to prove it.
You cannot prove that having a Dungeon Finder makes a game NOT an mmorpg, because there is a real world instance of an mmorpg with a Dungeon Finder. You can't prove that having a Dungeon Finder makes a game a lobby based game because there exists one instance of an mmorpg that isn't a lobby based game and it has a Dungeon Finder. Very soon there will be two instances.
*edit* TL;DR - Developers didn't chip away at the definition of MMORPG. You assumed the definition that you held to be true existed for everyone else. The Dungeon Finder has no bearing on a game's definition as MMORPG or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Of course if an item changes too much it can legitamately be called something different. However I don't believe WoW is different enough in any way shape or form. That metal head could still be a pole, many flagpoles have metal heads...
Literally everything I did in EQ I can do in WoW, and actually WoW gives me more options. WoW satisfies every single common definition of MMO there is. Persistant world, lots of people, lots of options, lots of content...
What people choose to do in whatever game does not detract from the definition, the definition is what CAN you do. If people choose to just do instances in WoW go for it, but it is still an MMO because it does have everything else.
Venge
If the game has been created so the persistant world has no meaning, resulting in it going empty, how is that MMO? There CAN be people there, but there isn't. Because there is no meaningful gameplay there.
It is not real options, if the game is made, so they cannot be meaningfully chosen.
Because an MMO is a game that allows a lot of people online at the same time. Thats it, nothing more. Everything else is a sub-genre, an MMOFPS, or an MMORPG, or a combo or whatever else.
Even if I was the only person in the world (as somtimes happens in very very low pop games) it would still be an MMO because the world allows for a lot of people. It might be completely boring but it would still be an MMO.
And WoW is just as persistant as EQ was.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Lizard, my argument was, that MMO has lost all meaning, because it is now reduced to something, that is indistinguishable from standard games. And you admitted it yourself, saying CoD could call itself MMO.
Originally posted by Rasputin Lizard, my argument was, that MMO has lost all meaning, because it is now reduced to something, that is indistinguishable from standard games. And you admitted it yourself, saying CoD could call itself MMO.
R.I.P. definition MMO.
The definition has lost all meaning to you because now you're realizing it includes a bunch of stuff you don't like. The definition of MMORPG always included stuff like Call of Duty. That's never changed. The definition of 'MMO' is open to an even wider range of games. Like multiplayer Bejeweled or Farmville.
It does suck that you don't like what developers are publishing right now. I have no suggestions for that other than to try out Xsyon. No instances, no LFG or DF tools. The setting and other mechanics may not be to your tastes though.
* edit * @Venge - CoD had 80,000 some people playing last night on Steam. That doesn't include everyone who bought the game through other sources.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
So what you are saying, is... what exactly?
MMO does not get defined by persistence? What then? "Massively" does not make a good qualifier, because standard FPS games have reached numbers, that go into the MMO realm. Joint Operations had 128 players for instance. Many others have 64, and I am sure, that if these standard games wanted to, they could make 256 or more.
So if you qualify only on amount of players, then MMO already has lost all meaning.
No, it hasn't, its qualifier is number of players.
It has meaning. Its meaning is in the words, I don't see where your confusion is.
For instance, Democracy might have a lot of meanings to the individual other than its actual meaning, however that does not mean that the words ACTUAL function and meaning has changed if it means something diferent to you, it is still at its root Demo, being people and cracy being power. Power to the people. A government ruled by the people.
You can tack on other ideals and concepts to the word that are extranious and not always true like "Patriotisim" or "Truth Justice and the American way!" however these are meaning concepts that brach off the origional idea, they are not actually defined by or redefining the meaning of the word itself.
It also deprives options. If everybody uses this new option, there will be no people travelling the world, making the world void of life, thus depriving those, who want a vibrant world with meaning.
Every option in a game has to be weighed carefully.
IMO these Dungeon Finders reduce these so-called MMOs to standard multiplayer-games, serving as a lobby.
Again, for the 5th time, if a game has a mechanic that makes players WANT to play in the big open world to actually do things, IE rifts, then your concern about the world being merely a lobby game is moot.
So what amount of players would qualify a game as an MMO?
Well from Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously.
So I'll go with that.
Edit: It also says it must include atleast "one" persistant world. As most games we call MMO's feature both
1. Hundreds or Thousands of players playing simultaniously.
2. Atleast 1 persistant world.
I'll say Rift is an MMO and that most new games coming out trying to be MMOS are too.
Next time you are using that Dungeon Finder in whatever MMO you are playing, ask yourself, if this is any different from Counterstrike, Call of Duty or Battlefield lobbies.
You have just reduced your game to a standard multiplayer game (and I bet you play with fewer players in that instance you get teleported to, than you would in any of the named standard games) - just with a huge grind and worse mechanics.
So Joint Operations is an MMO?
1) Real world data does not support what you say. WOW has been using DF for a while> There are MANY people in the cities, which gives a vibrant, populated feel. And if you go to the zones, there are still some people around. When i travel around to do archaeology, there are people around.
2) Do most people CARE about it? Nope. In fact, I hate it when the quest zones are too crowded because of kill-stealing. In fact, this is very bad back in the EQ days. You have to group .. but then you have to compete with other groups for kills.
3) If I spend most of my time in dungeons (leveling, gearing up), i care less about what is going on in the quest zones ANYWAY.
The real question is whether a more lobby like design makes MMOs better games. IMHO, a big YES.
Your edit came after my last reply.
But BF, CoD or JO lobbies are persistant.
Does that qualify? And what is the difference whether you have a text avatar (as in the lobbies) or a 3D one jumping around a mailbox waiting for the DF to teleport you to an instance, if there is no other meaningful functionality?
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone who will call a "Lobby" a persistant world, I mean I guess we could start by defining what makes a world a world?
Eh don't get me wrong I like persistant worlds, but at the same time I was playing UO I was playing Diablo 1. Which is not an MMO traditionally speaking.
If you do little else than chat, equip your character and wait for your next game, then a lobby is just a valid a world as Ironforge, the only difference being 2D vs. 3D.
Your argumentation is circular. WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, ergo DF is valid in MMO's.
It is also called a fundamentalistic argument, where in your case WoW is the fundament, you will not go beyond. Like with religioous fundamentalists it is impossible to argue against you, if you are not willing to go deeper than that.
The problem is the definition of "valid"...as in "I don't like it." Just because you don't like something doesn't make it invalid or change the definition of the thing you don't like. I wish people could tell the difference between their opinions of reality and reality as it is displayed to them.
Dungeon finder exists in the largest mmorpg currently running in the Western World. The game play is still Massive, it's still Multiplayer, it's still Online and there is still role playing going on. Dungeon finder is one feature and doesn't make or not make a game an MMOrpg.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is not a circular arguement a circular arguement would be, WoW is an MMO because it has DF, DF is valid in MMO's therefore WoW is an MMO.
The argument you gave is perfectly valid: WoW is an MMO, WoW has DF, DF is valid in MMO's.
DF is a tool, as a tool, it is perfectly valid in MMO's. WoW used this quite well, showing that DF is a valid tool in MMO's
Venge
edit - and if an FPS offers hundreds to thousands of players on-line at the same time in a persistant world, it absolutely is an MMO. MMO is an umbrella term, thats it, there are many many types of MMO's, and I do consider GW an MMO (despite what the devs call it) because there is at least one persistant part of it and I'm not alone in that.
Thats it, the only requirements for MMO are lots of people online at the same time and for me a persistant world. But technically even persistant world could be argued.
You have to go deeper than to just point to WoW to define MMO (RPG, FPS, RTS doesn't matter).
I just had an argument with Laughing-man, where we tried to get close to a definition. He claimed it was the numbers and one persistent world to bind together the game, where I claimed, that many standard games qualify or are close to qualifying on both - but the persistent world is a 2D lobby with names. But what is the difference, if you don't do much meaningful interactions with the other players in the 3D "lobby" (like Ironforge at endgame is reduced to)?
My point is, that the developers of MMOs have chipped so much away of what made the essence of MMO (IMO a meaningful persistent world, that is the center of gameplay), that the term itself ceases to have any meaning.
Can an item not cease to be what it used to be, if you alter it enough? If you put a metal head on a pole, it ceases to be a pole, but is now a hammer.
The same with WoW, a game that is only hanging on by a thread to the definition MMO. Only saving grace is the leveling up, which still takes place in a (mostly empty) persistant world.
WoW ceases to be an MMO at end game. This is in my opinion of course.
Either games have to be removed from the definition of MMO, or the definition itself has to be scrapped.
Of course if an item changes too much it can legitamately be called something different. However I don't believe WoW is different enough in any way shape or form. That metal head could still be a pole, many flagpoles have metal heads...
Literally everything I did in EQ I can do in WoW, and actually WoW gives me more options. WoW satisfies every single common definition of MMO there is. Persistant world, lots of people, lots of options, lots of content...
What people choose to do in whatever game does not detract from the definition, the definition is what CAN you do. If people choose to just do instances in WoW go for it, but it is still an MMO because it does have everything else.
Venge
If the game has been created so the persistant world has no meaning, resulting in it going empty, how is that MMO? There CAN be people there, but there isn't. Because there is no meaningful gameplay there.
It is not real options, if the game is made, so they cannot be meaningfully chosen.
Well there you go. You are using your own definition of MMORPG and expecting it to mean the same thing for everyone else. You're not a brain in a jar; the rest of the universe, including other people exists. "MMORPG" doesn't have a clearly defined, applies or does not apply in all instances definition. The definition implies some interpretation.
From Wikipedia (dubious source at best, but it comes up in Google): Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of computer role-playing games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
: define: MMORPG
From PC Magazine: A role playing game on the computer played by many people. An MMORPG differs from a regular computer role playing game because its environment is perpetual. People log in, join the game, take on their role and leave whenever they wish, but the game continues. : PC Magazine : MMORPG
The first definition doesn't mention worlds at all. The second mentions persistence, but it's the persistence of the player's experience, not the world. If your character has a persistent development, even if there is no world, but rather a lobby, then you're playing an MMORPG. Call of Duty could call itself an MMORPG and Team Fortress 2 could call itself an MMORPG because you have persistent character development. When you log back in, your experience continues from where it left off. However, since it's open to some interpretation your opinion could differ from someone else's.
If your argument is that having a Dungeon Finder tool reduces socialization among players, or reduces the feel that the player is in a persistent world, then you may have a point. You would still need to prove it.
You cannot prove that having a Dungeon Finder makes a game NOT an mmorpg, because there is a real world instance of an mmorpg with a Dungeon Finder. You can't prove that having a Dungeon Finder makes a game a lobby based game because there exists one instance of an mmorpg that isn't a lobby based game and it has a Dungeon Finder. Very soon there will be two instances.
*edit*
TL;DR - Developers didn't chip away at the definition of MMORPG. You assumed the definition that you held to be true existed for everyone else. The Dungeon Finder has no bearing on a game's definition as MMORPG or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because an MMO is a game that allows a lot of people online at the same time. Thats it, nothing more. Everything else is a sub-genre, an MMOFPS, or an MMORPG, or a combo or whatever else.
Even if I was the only person in the world (as somtimes happens in very very low pop games) it would still be an MMO because the world allows for a lot of people. It might be completely boring but it would still be an MMO.
And WoW is just as persistant as EQ was.
Venge
Lizard, my argument was, that MMO has lost all meaning, because it is now reduced to something, that is indistinguishable from standard games. And you admitted it yourself, saying CoD could call itself MMO.
R.I.P. definition MMO.
If CoD can support a lot of players than I'd call it an MMO.
IMO thats all the term ever was. People like to say no it was this or that, but really it was just that game that was like that, not the genre.
Venge
Edit - and it is that element of having a lot of people that distinguishes it from regular games. Those other people change the whole environment.
The definition has lost all meaning to you because now you're realizing it includes a bunch of stuff you don't like. The definition of MMORPG always included stuff like Call of Duty. That's never changed. The definition of 'MMO' is open to an even wider range of games. Like multiplayer Bejeweled or Farmville.
It does suck that you don't like what developers are publishing right now. I have no suggestions for that other than to try out Xsyon. No instances, no LFG or DF tools. The setting and other mechanics may not be to your tastes though.
* edit *
@Venge - CoD had 80,000 some people playing last night on Steam. That doesn't include everyone who bought the game through other sources.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.