Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMO Semantics
mCalvert
Member CommonPosts: 1,283
What words would you use to differentiate between complex MMORPGs like wow, lotro, conan. eve, darkfall, and lobby based MMOs like star trek global agenda, hellgate, APB etc and multiplayer shooters with some mmo or rpg or social mechanics. The differences I see are:
'real' MMORPGs have:
-large open persistant environments
-massive numbers of players in one persistent virtual space and chat room, real time, ie 100+
-arcing storyline
-a unique recognizable persistent avatar
-role playing elements
For example, LOTRO has all of this. Compare to APB, which has some of this by definition but I would not consider in the same style. Or diablo which has randomly generate dungeons. Im not sure Im making my point, but in the same way that MMOS are subgenered into fantasy, scifi, historical. Or games are seperated into MMO, FPS, RTS. Even though they all share common features you can easily differentiate between them.
Comments
I would say a game that seperates its playerbase, through mechanics such as "sharding" is not a 'real' mmorpg.
I would put it almost exactly the way the OP put it but remove things deliberately designed to be inflammatory. Don't say true, only real...
Just use MMO as the umbrella term and the default are the more world based, then differentiate from there: Lobby MMO, MMOFPS, virtual world...
We may disagree on the strict definitions but we generally have an idea what you are talking about.
Venge
What id like is an official term so we can feel all elite over the lesser mmos. Like 'progressive' or 'hybrid'.
To be honest I haven't played any MMOs in the last few years that I could truly say had "persistent worlds." Aside from the people playing, the chat channels, and the AH/trade nothing really changed. It was the same game when I logged off as it was the next day logging in- players changed nothing within the game world.
A persistent open world supporting lots of players is really the only requirement.
Although personally I find arguments over what constitutes an MMO to be inherently degenerative. The core idea is already stated in as much detail as is needed with "massively multiplayer online". Genres are vague and broad definitions. Not specific.
It's particularly degenerative when you consider how much discussion gets wasted arguing the topic when a game having an MMO status is so meaningless to the majority of players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Thats my point. It means something to us. I want to keep less serious mmos from creeping in.
Let's be extremely optimistic: You convince everyone in this thread of a definition.
In that (unlikely) best case scenario, games you don't consider MMOs will still call themselves MMOs.
The inevitable result of MMO definition threads is players realizing that -- even if they do care about massive gameplay -- they should stop caring about what's called an MMO.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm a purist, a "true" MMORPG veteran, and I can remember the days when that acryonymn ment something. The games we have today are sad and perverted shells of their former glory.
In my definition an MMORPG inovles several key elements (listed in order of importance).
Persisent and Virtual World in which the actions of players and player organizations can affect the world.
Classles, and realistic skill based character development utilizing player interdependencies (profession a requires support of professon b, and etc.)
Deep, rich and meaningful crafting system(s) complete with multiple and varied material and reasearch choices which allow the players to develop and experiment in order to create the best options (including structures, vehicles, and items on large scales). Raid and Loot "Gear" shoud not exist, raiding for craftable resources is perfectly acceptable, but droped items should never exceed the quality of crafted items. Meaningful crafting is and should always be an integral part of a "true" MMORPG.
Extensive, Customizable, and Completely Player Driven Economy.
Player organizations which provide a wide range of leadership and governance styles. Not every player organization is dictatorial, nor democratic, and each should have tools to satisfy their specific needs. Democracy, if a player organization wishes to embrace it, should not be thrown out simply to support autocracy because it is easier to implement.
PVP should exist in order to enforce social bonds and hirearchies while allowing for some risk, although mindless griefing in lieu of meaningful PVP should never be tolerated.
There is of course probably more, however I think these are, for the most part my important points.
Modern games however I feel, either refuse to or fail in some manner to incorporate these key elements of MMORPGs into their designs. For instance, soloing. When did it become acceptable or sought after for a player to experience the world of an MMORPG either totally or almost totally alone? What happened to the Multiplayer aspect?
I think games which allow this are MOSPEs (Massively Online Single Player Experiences)
Additionally games which predominantly present raiding, realm bashing, monster hunting, or similar experiences, are what I call OCRPG (Online Cooperative Role Playing Game). More importantly, even if this activity occurs within an "MMO", how is it any differnet from Diablo, or Baldour's Gate? The point is, that it is skewed highly towards the single player side of the scale.
At the end of that day, there is only one true type of Massively Online Multiplayer Role Playing Game, and the rest have de-evolved into the bastardized offspring of true MMORPGs and Single Player Games, with a little gene splicing from the F2P delusion.
I would require:
- graphics. With pure text representation, the game is a MUD, not a MMO.
- persistency, meaning your game status is saved.
- massive multiplayer, meaning theres a LOT of people in the same space, playing in realtime.
- roleplaying elements if its a MMORPG and not just any MMO.
I don't really care much what the game is called as long as it is not outright misleading. Callling DDO a MMORPG for example is perfectly acceptable, since it attracts much the same audience and it is very similar to classic MMORPGs. Even if you don't meet other people in the dungeons, the game still plays exactly the same as other MMOs: it has a story, it has quests, you kill stuff, gather stuff, play online with your friends and explore the content.
Therefore calling Dungeons & Dragons Online (DDO) a MMORPG is justified. It is descriptive enough: I get a sufficient idea of what the game is about.
Then again, even I have my limits. League of Legends is not an MMORPG even if it has persistent advancement. League of Legends (LoL), Bloodline Champions (BLC), Heroes of Newerth(HoN), Demigod and, the mother of all, Defense of the Ancients (DotA) all should be put under the same acronym. All of these games are very similar in nature and attract much the same audience.
None of the above don't even try to build a world but have a separate launcher program to begin the matches. There's a big difference between going from a launcher program or a server browser and going into the gameworld to search for instanced content. So, DDO is very different from LoL in this regard. DDO is also different from Diablo and Baldur's Gate in one major detail. You cannot play DDO offline.
In the end, clear definitions are impossible and are bound to be very subjective. One sees a MMORPG where other does not. I am not a MMORPG purist, but I am somewhat of a PvP purist. Ganking, zerging, griefing, hunting lowbies and the sort is not proper PvP for me. I use the term MMORPG loosely, you may use the term PvP loosely. C'est la vie.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
It must be massive and there must be a virtual world. Without that it is not a MMORPG. The rest is not clear and there can be different opinions, IMO.
It is important for the community to try to figure out a reasonable definition. If a company claims a game is a MMORPG there is no reason to blindly believe them. Being critical is important. And definitions makes it less difficult for players to find the right games and not getting dis appointed.
Point 4 needs clarification:
Roleplay elements as in game mechanics? some kind of EXP progression, stats, dice-roll combat
Or Roleplay as in character interactions? Emotes, personal stories, player interaction
What was scary is that after reading so many of the posts around here, I actually wasn't sure if your 'progressive/hybrid' post was serious at first.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think some people add to many things to their definition of MMORPGs. There's a difference between what it takes to qualify for the acronym MMORPG, and what you WANT in an MMORPG.
That's like somebody saying that romantic love comedy's must star Meg Ryan.
That's a preference, not a fact. (Unless you're talking about 90s romantic love comedys, of course)
Anyone preferring Meg Ryan over Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock is a poopoo head. *folds arms*
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It wasnt. I was just hoping to find a word to define that type of MMO vs the mass of new MMOs coming out that dont compare to the like of Ultima or SWG or EVE. Maybe that word is 'sandbox'.
UO,SWG and EVE have also bin called a Life Simulation, they try to copy real live in a fantasy/sci-fi setting. thus are MMOLSG
In my opinion....
First you have the world type:
MOG: Multiplayer Online Game
MMOG: Massively Multiplayer Online Game
Then you can apply the game style:
RPG: Role Playing Game
FPS: First Person Shooter
TPS: Third Person Shooter
RTS: Real Time Strategy
RTT: Real Time Tactics
AG: Action Game
SIM: SImulation
Companies really need to start defining these properly. Especailly the MO and MMO part. Everyone just uses MMORPG these days and it's really muddied the waters.
Personally I'm looking for the MMOFPSRTSSIMRPG!
Making the distinction between Massive Multiplayer and just Multiplayer is problematic. The limit between the two is completely arbitrary.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I think we can mostly agree that 2 isn't massively, and 1000 people probably is.
Now we just need to figure out the middle.
In my opinion, the difference between MMO and MO is the gameplay.
MO would be like Neverwinter Nights, Dungeon Siege, Doom, Quake and others where the idea is that those playing are in a group or facing each other (PvP), playing the game together. The game can be "beaten". There is no endgame. Once the last boss is beaten, that is it. (Did that make any sense?)
MMO's have hundreds of people playing in the world through a commercial servers. There really is not a way to "beat the game", as there is an end game. You can play the game in a group or solo or against each other (PvP), but others are playing also, at the same time.
I don't think I communicated my thoughts well, but hopefully the gist came through. One last try... MO's to me are like console games. MMO's are geared to support many times more people playing.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
why would you need a new term for that? just do what everybody else does:
- Call lesser mmos "lesser mmos" and hate them.
- If it turns out to be a real mmo, call it a WoW-Clone. Then, hate it.
- If it turns out it's actually not WoW-Clone - buy it and play it until you find some other reason to hate it.
Hype train -> Reality
I disagree.
MOG - Multiplayer Online Game references lobby based games like Guild Wars..
MMOG - Massively Multiplayer Online Game references persistent world games like Eve, WoW, etc.
Sure, there are some games that are hard to classify like APB, it's mostly lobby based but you still see other players in the zones. I'll elave it up to them to decide which category they best fit.
What I find interesting is most forum goers here seem to be able to tell the difference easily. Look at the hype and the comments on news items. Korean grinders and the lame MMOs with cats asia keeps churning out are ignored, and people focus on MMOs inspired by WOW, particulary ones that are complex and unique, and sandboxes even more.
People seem to be looking for serious MMOs that are immersive and complex. I just wish you could label it. Sandbox comes close, but it doesnt apply to all of them. Hardcore might be close also.
It's a natural phenom that pushes genres towards extinction, if designers within the genre aren't very careful about it. (And applies to a lot more things than just games.)
You have Product A. Group B has become experts at it. Group C are lightly-engaged. Group D haven't purchased the product yet, but are potential customers for a future product.
The company could choose to make Product B which is hardcore; Group B will be ecstatic -- finally the perfect product. Meanwhile, Group C is put off because the new product is too hardcore, and Group D definitely aren't interested (Product A already failed to be appealing enough to them.)
The company could alteratively make Product C which isn't hardcore, you get Group C and D (who represent a lot more customers) but lose some of Group B (although many of group B will stay if the product is a skillfully distilled version of Product A, retaining much of the depth despite being less complex.)
Product B is the path towards genre extinction. Product C is the way to grow the genre (especially when the key game elements are skillfully distilled to a simpler-but-equally-deep system.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver