Originally posted by Creslin321 So my question is this. Where do you draw the line? At what point does our desire for convenience and tailored content defeat the purpose of an MMORPG? At what point are we just playing Diablo with a very elaborate lobby?
MMORPGs have multiple things going on simultaneously. CORPGs have one thing going on. In MMORPGs, you may have 10 people doing the same quest at a time, but there are still thousands more doing different things, be it crafting, PvPing, grinding. CORPGs has the whole group doing the same thing all the time. Looking at Diablo (original since I never played 2), everyone was on the same quest: Defeat diablo. There was really nothing more to it than that, until you got to the servers. Even then, content was still the same.
MMORPGs have "variety" and CORPGs are "static". That's where I draw the line.
As a shock to some, I actually did not like the "instances" in GW. I truly felt I was playing a CORPG.
- 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
But instead of just throwing in the towel and saying let's just personalize all content, why not try to make content more cooperative in nature so that players actually benefit from the presence of other players and aren't penalized by it? I think this is the approach GW2 is taking, let's hope it works .
It seems that some people just cannot feel elite enough if they don't get to compete with others over everything and they can be really vocal about it.
For me the cooperative aspects of MMORPGs have been the ones that do the most toward a 'world building' feeling. Player Cities in SWG really made the game feel persistant rather. Cooperative projects in A Tale In the Desert really help cement the various communities of that game. In all MMORPGs cooperation within guilds is what makes them such a strong social unit.
For me it is more the player base than anything. I don't care if you can have 1k people in an area or just ten, if the player base has melted in that larger game world and the place is baren, well, the game isn't very massive then >__<
If a game has a million+ players, and they play online in some way together, it just might be an MMO.
By this definition, Starcraft, Diablo, Call of Duty, and any other game where you can play with other players over some internet interface are MMO's .
Strictly MMO's, yes, correct, they are all massive online multiplayer experiences.
MMORPG, well, CoD isn't, and starcraft would be an MMORTS then (although world of tanks is moreso this I suppose), and maybe LoL would be better classified as an MMORTS as well, but the RPG elements are so strong, well, where to draw the line? You could call it MMOMOBA, but MOBA is such a horrible name for a genre, just, bleh!
CoD would be an MMOFPS, obviously.
Until we get an MMORPG that really embraces world pvp and world events on an unimagined scale, and does it successfully, I think that typical part that people consider an MMO experience to have (running around a world full of other people doing random crap) really doesn't apply anymore. With most MMOs having dungeon finders and instant transports everywhere that open world aspect barely affects the gameplay once you're done questing. And you don't even have to quest to level anymore in wow or rift.
But boy do I wish Rift would have kept me out in the world after I hit fifty, but Rifts and Invasions being mostly pointless, and expert and raid rifts being close to useless as well (other than for filling up a source machine) led me to sit in my capital waiting for ques, and that just made me move on (because the instanced content wasn't very satisfying).
Usually I disagree with most of what you post, but some of this is pretty spot on (rest is cut out).
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
ANet made a nice distinction as example, by calling GW a 'CORPG' and GW2 an MMORPG.
The difference why they called GW a CORPG and GW2 an MMORPG is because the majority of the ingame world was instanced. So, I'd say that if the world is overall a persistent game world where people can play in with hundreds to thousands, then it's an MMORPG.
If the overall world isn't persistent, but most of the areas instanced zones where you can't be in with more than a few, then it's an MORPG or CORPG or LORPG (lobby-based online roleplaying game) or whatever.
Adding to this, I would say ROLEPLAYING defines a mmorpg for me, while in search of a better word I use MMO as a word for a massive multiplayer online game, that has little roleplaying aspects. Stories does not = roleplaying; stories is just a film with you casted as the main character. And yes we old players are insane.. oh and haters too, that is why we spend so much time with games.
The line between lobby and mmorpg is fine, and cannot be defined. Some will argue that instant travel is the line, and other will argue that some instant travelling is fine as long as it is in synch with the game concepts (such as portals in a magic world). In my opinion, it is not only the amount of instant travel and conveniences, but also whether you can and are encuraged to interact with other players. And whether the particular game world feels like a second world you can step into, or just a game.
Diablo 3 with a nice lobby is prob a better game than most MMORPG. When it comes out, it will be my main game. There is no need to play MMOs.
now what you said is the truth:it used to be that mmo were the bomb ,but ever since maker converted their game to simple multiplayer and made believe they were mmo it made mad so many player that the snippet you said is absolutly right.there is no need to play mmo cause on average mo are often plain better!
I'm not sure "it used to be" that way.
Apart from a vague sense of being part of a large economy (which you also can get in standard multiplayer) there really isn't a clear benefit to being massively multiplayer, to most players.
Conversely, the more players online at once the more problems need to be dealt with (both technical and gameplay.) The majority of massive multiplayer games which truly involve lots of players tend to have really cruddy gameplay (the exception that I've seen being Planetside, which smartly put population caps on zones.)
Plus, traditionally, fantasy RPGs are about small group adventures. 1000 players add nothing to that. Like i said, i think Diablo 1 & 2, (and soon 3) are much better games than many MMOs.
A long time ago I would've said MMO's have a persistent world encompassing hundreds to thousands of players, while multiplayer RPG's allow a few players to play together in a story-drivin/single player-ish type of instance or campaign. But with games like GW, Lunia, Star Trek online, and many others being called MMO's, but work far more similar like a multiplayer RPG, the two genres really seem to have merged.
At this point I would just say if the game offers a single player campaign mode like the Diablo series or Two worlds, then it's a co-op rpg. If it doesn't, then it's usually given the MMO label.
The genre defining term "MMORPG" was originally coined by Richard Garriot in reference to Ultima Online. Since then, several games have been released in the genre such as Everquest, WoW, etc. and most people would agree that these are also MMORPGs. All of these games have persistent worlds that a large number of players participate in simultaneously.
However, there is a problem with the pure persistent world model. Inconvenience and Chaos. In a purely persistent (non-instanceD) world, you need to travel everywhere using game means (inconvenience) and it is difficult for the game developers to deliver tailored experiences to any one group of players because other players may already have consumed the content that the initial group was trying to find (Chaos).
To deal with this, game developers started to create "Personalized content" like instancing and phasing. Combine this with features like dungeon finder and battleground queueing that instantly transport you to instanced content and you have a game that is extremely similar to a regular multiplayer RPG like Diablo. After all, in Diablo, you simply join a game and are immediately served the content.
So my question is this. Where do you draw the line? At what point does our desire for convenience and tailored content defeat the purpose of an MMORPG? At what point are we just playing Diablo with a very elaborate lobby?
I don't want any "personalized content" if that's how you are describing it.
No instances at all, no cross server grouping, no phasing.
Originally posted by Adamantine Did we not have this exact same thread just recently ?
MMOs differ from persistent multiplayer environments with the the MASSIVELY: They are MASSIVELY multiplayer online games, not just multiplayer online games. Meaning at least hundreds, but up to about 10,000 players operate in the same environment (this is a technical barrier, cant manage more MMO connects on a single server). Also, it has to be realtime ... website games dont count. Note also the persistent - if its not persistent, its not a MMO.
This is how I distinguish between the two. Good definition Adamantine, although I don't see any reason that a website client couldn't be implemented for an MMO - so long as the server is persistent, there are web technologies that can roll in realtime.
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
I agree. I would rather a bigger game world, and more dungeons, than instancing.
And for God's sake, NO SCALING!
if a Dragon lives in that cave, let it be a dragon.
If a Kobol lives in that cave, let it be a Kobold.
Not whatever you need so the party can win and make xp. If you're not strong enough for the Dragon, don't go in that cave. If you're to strong for the Kobold, don't go in that cave.
A big part of the problem here is that since the earlier MMOs had persistent worlds, it has falsely become a requirement or defining feature. Testament to this is the document almost always cited to support the claim that it is a requirement - a document that sees PSW, virtual world, MUD, MMOG and MMORPG as interchangeable terms. Persistence is common to, but not necessary in, almost every client-server environment.
The difference between an MMORPG and a multiplayer RPG is simply the number of players.
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
Diablo 3 with a nice lobby is prob a better game than most MMORPG. When it comes out, it will be my main game. There is no need to play MMOs.
now what you said is the truth:it used to be that mmo were the bomb ,but ever since maker converted their game to simple multiplayer and made believe they were mmo it made mad so many player that the snippet you said is absolutly right.there is no need to play mmo cause on average mo are often plain better!
I'm not sure "it used to be" that way.
Apart from a vague sense of being part of a large economy (which you also can get in standard multiplayer) there really isn't a clear benefit to being massively multiplayer, to most players.
Conversely, the more players online at once the more problems need to be dealt with (both technical and gameplay.) The majority of massive multiplayer games which truly involve lots of players tend to have really cruddy gameplay (the exception that I've seen being Planetside, which smartly put population caps on zones.)
Nah it definitely used to be that way before massive instancing. In EQ when you went to a dungeon, there were people there. They were doing things. You could interact with them positively and negatively. It may have been inconvenient and it caused problems, but it definitely made you feel like you were a part of the world.
Just to clarify, I don't think that the EQ way is "better." In fact, I think that instanced dungeons aren't a bad thing, but they aren't really consistent with a persistent world. I think part of the issue is that the gameplay that occurs in the persistent world (questing) is essentially a solo affair. So you only play with other players in either dungeons or battle ground PvP, both instanced. This really makes the game just feel less like an MMORPG. Hopefully GW2's dynamic events will work to fix this.
Anyway, I guess the point of my OP was that I feel like the only unique edge an MMORPG has over other games is that its a persistent world where tons of players participate at once. However, it seems like many developers utterly ignore this asset and try to push their games closer to multiplayer RPGs with heavily instanced content. So if you're going to do that, what's the point in making an MMORPG? Why not just make a multiplayer lobby game or a CORPG like GW1?
Sounds like you're vaguely agreeing with me.
I wasn't disputing whether early MMOs were more massive -- they were. I was disputing whether they were "the bomb" -- they weren't (and most players seems to develop the same subconscious distaste for the diminishing-returns-of-fun I mentioned above.)
Not-so-massive multiplayer is just the 'sweet spot' for what players want to interact with; it's the sweet spot of fun. They want a sense of larger community only insofar as it doesn't stomp on their fun (because past a certain size it's more likely to stomp their fun than create their fun)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
I agree. I would rather a bigger game world, and more dungeons, than instancing.
And for God's sake, NO SCALING!
if a Dragon lives in that cave, let it be a dragon.
If a Kobol lives in that cave, let it be a Kobold.
Not whatever you need so the party can win and make xp. If you're not strong enough for the Dragon, don't go in that cave. If you're to strong for the Kobold, don't go in that cave.
I agree, Imhotepp, but there's a problem here. Because players that are too strong for that Kobold will go in that cave, keep wiping the Kobolds, causing an issue for players that need to fight those Kobolds.
This is one of several reasons I want to see the power gaps of level grind go away. Imagine a world where those same Kobolds are always at least a little challenge, and you can return to that cave forever and never have it become something that's below you. Imagine what GMs and Event Staff can do in such a world.
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
I agree. I would rather a bigger game world, and more dungeons, than instancing.
And for God's sake, NO SCALING!
if a Dragon lives in that cave, let it be a dragon.
If a Kobol lives in that cave, let it be a Kobold.
Not whatever you need so the party can win and make xp. If you're not strong enough for the Dragon, don't go in that cave. If you're to strong for the Kobold, don't go in that cave.
I agree, Imhotepp, but there's a problem here. Because players that are too strong for that Kobold will go in that cave, keep wiping the Kobolds, causing an issue for players that need to fight those Kobolds.
This is one of several reasons I want to see the power gaps of level grind go away. Imagine a world where those same Kobolds are always at least a little challenge, and you can return to that cave forever and never have it become something that's below you. Imagine what GMs and Event Staff can do in such a world.
Er, but what you describe isn't an issue in games with scaling. How many level 85 players are in that level 20 gnoll cave? None. There's no benefit to killing level 20 gnolls, so it doesn't happen.
Scaling vs. No Scaling discussions are purely about content variety. In the simplified game with only kobolds and dragons:
When you get to endgame in Game A, you only fight Dragons. That's it. Just dragons.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
And in fact "twice the content" is the worst possible example of the true difference in content variety. Typical games have hundreds of mob types, and if you get to endgame and only fight the ~10 tough mobs, that's a huge difference from a game with scaling giving you 100+ mob types.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
I agree. I would rather a bigger game world, and more dungeons, than instancing.
And for God's sake, NO SCALING!
if a Dragon lives in that cave, let it be a dragon.
If a Kobol lives in that cave, let it be a Kobold.
Not whatever you need so the party can win and make xp. If you're not strong enough for the Dragon, don't go in that cave. If you're to strong for the Kobold, don't go in that cave.
I agree, Imhotepp, but there's a problem here. Because players that are too strong for that Kobold will go in that cave, keep wiping the Kobolds, causing an issue for players that need to fight those Kobolds.
This is one of several reasons I want to see the power gaps of level grind go away. Imagine a world where those same Kobolds are always at least a little challenge, and you can return to that cave forever and never have it become something that's below you. Imagine what GMs and Event Staff can do in such a world.
Er, but what you describe isn't an issue in games with scaling. How many level 85 players are in that level 20 gnoll cave? None. There's no benefit to killing level 20 gnolls, so it doesn't happen.
Scaling vs. No Scaling discussions are purely about content variety. In the simplified game with only kobolds and dragons:
When you get to endgame in Game A, you only fight Dragons. That's it. Just dragons.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
And in fact "twice the content" is the worst possible example of the true difference in content variety. Typical games have hundreds of mob types, and if you get to endgame and only fight the ~10 tough mobs, that's a huge difference from a game with scaling giving you 100+ mob types.
We've seen that game, Axe. It got boring.
I want a game where Dragons mean something. But not just them, Demons and Liche Kings and Elemental Princes...what have you. But I do want the top MOBs to be special. Hell, I'd like them played by GMs. Roaming the world with goals that we players must stop.
A multiplayer RPG usually just allow a single party to play, even though some like Biowares NWN allowed up to 128 at the same server. I would say that that is the limit, more than 128 players on the same server and it is a MMORPG.
There is also CORPG, like Guildwars, DDO and STO that allows more people in social hubs but only a group when you are out on a adventure.
Not all MMOs are RPGs, there are a few MMOFPS and MMORTS games out there as well.
Multiplayer = Games you can play with other people online
The first category died with WoW, since then we had just Multiplayer games with seamless world (most of the times instanced) which game developers can charge as they were MMORPG
I am still waiting for the next MMORPG, I ve been waiting 7 years now.
I would have to agree that the term MMO has been butchered and bended since its inception to lack any meaning anymore. If you look at the features that are unique to the first MMOs you can see what differentiated them from previous online games. They had a persistant world where very large numbers of players could interact.
The current crop of MMOs have shifted the gameplay enough that we have to ask "Should we redefine MMO?" or should we define a new term for what seems to be a medley of a bunch of online experiences combined.. For instance, WoW pre-85 is a traditional MMO with a huge persistant world. Post-85, WoW is a CORPG (dungeons) and MOBA (pvp).
Aye with all these genres blending together, mmo is equivalent to the word sport.
Imagine people discussing sport, and some think the discussion is about Tennis, while others talk about football, and both think they talk about the same. It is probably going to be a discussion without much point. As is some of the discussions on this site, and words like haters and trolls get trown around because we don't understand what the other part is on about.
It would really help with some genre definitions if it is possible. I like the words MMORTS and MMOFPS which defines a genre well, just as examples.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
I want a game where Dragons mean something. But not just them, Demons and Liche Kings and Elemental Princes...what have you. But I do want the top MOBs to be special. Hell, I'd like them played by GMs. Roaming the world with goals that we players must stop.
This isn't a game mechanic you get bored of. What I'm describing is true no matter what game we're talking about.
...and when's the last time you didn't see unique monsters at endgame (and for that matter, what's a MMORPG where you saw every lowbie monster at endgame?)
If a company made the mistake of trying to use only endgame-unique assets for endgame, they'd get called out pretty quick for repetition ("I liked that game, but at you get to a point where all you fight are Dragons and Hydras and it gets boring.")
Players reward devs who are efficient with content creation by praising those games. In typical MMORPGs this means min/maxing re-use of low-level assets (re-using the ones that make sense at endgame.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
MMORPGs have "variety" and CORPGs are "static". That's where I draw the line.
As a shock to some, I actually did not like the "instances" in GW. I truly felt I was playing a CORPG.
- 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
Cooperation? That's pinko, hippy, carebear, commie talk.
It seems that some people just cannot feel elite enough if they don't get to compete with others over everything and they can be really vocal about it.
For me the cooperative aspects of MMORPGs have been the ones that do the most toward a 'world building' feeling. Player Cities in SWG really made the game feel persistant rather. Cooperative projects in A Tale In the Desert really help cement the various communities of that game. In all MMORPGs cooperation within guilds is what makes them such a strong social unit.
Strictly MMO's, yes, correct, they are all massive online multiplayer experiences.
MMORPG, well, CoD isn't, and starcraft would be an MMORTS then (although world of tanks is moreso this I suppose), and maybe LoL would be better classified as an MMORTS as well, but the RPG elements are so strong, well, where to draw the line? You could call it MMOMOBA, but MOBA is such a horrible name for a genre, just, bleh!
CoD would be an MMOFPS, obviously.
Until we get an MMORPG that really embraces world pvp and world events on an unimagined scale, and does it successfully, I think that typical part that people consider an MMO experience to have (running around a world full of other people doing random crap) really doesn't apply anymore. With most MMOs having dungeon finders and instant transports everywhere that open world aspect barely affects the gameplay once you're done questing. And you don't even have to quest to level anymore in wow or rift.
But boy do I wish Rift would have kept me out in the world after I hit fifty, but Rifts and Invasions being mostly pointless, and expert and raid rifts being close to useless as well (other than for filling up a source machine) led me to sit in my capital waiting for ques, and that just made me move on (because the instanced content wasn't very satisfying).
Usually I disagree with most of what you post, but some of this is pretty spot on (rest is cut out).
Adding to this, I would say ROLEPLAYING defines a mmorpg for me, while in search of a better word I use MMO as a word for a massive multiplayer online game, that has little roleplaying aspects. Stories does not = roleplaying; stories is just a film with you casted as the main character. And yes we old players are insane.. oh and haters too, that is why we spend so much time with games.
The line between lobby and mmorpg is fine, and cannot be defined. Some will argue that instant travel is the line, and other will argue that some instant travelling is fine as long as it is in synch with the game concepts (such as portals in a magic world). In my opinion, it is not only the amount of instant travel and conveniences, but also whether you can and are encuraged to interact with other players. And whether the particular game world feels like a second world you can step into, or just a game.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Plus, traditionally, fantasy RPGs are about small group adventures. 1000 players add nothing to that. Like i said, i think Diablo 1 & 2, (and soon 3) are much better games than many MMOs.
A long time ago I would've said MMO's have a persistent world encompassing hundreds to thousands of players, while multiplayer RPG's allow a few players to play together in a story-drivin/single player-ish type of instance or campaign. But with games like GW, Lunia, Star Trek online, and many others being called MMO's, but work far more similar like a multiplayer RPG, the two genres really seem to have merged.
At this point I would just say if the game offers a single player campaign mode like the Diablo series or Two worlds, then it's a co-op rpg. If it doesn't, then it's usually given the MMO label.
I don't want any "personalized content" if that's how you are describing it.
No instances at all, no cross server grouping, no phasing.
This is how I distinguish between the two. Good definition Adamantine, although I don't see any reason that a website client couldn't be implemented for an MMO - so long as the server is persistent, there are web technologies that can roll in realtime.
Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
by my beliefs and definition, PERSISTANT WORLD is the key to being a true MMORPG or not.
a fully fledged MMORPG should be 100% persistant (read: nothing should be instanced)
sandbox, themepark or any other kind has to be 100% persistant world
groups are camping a dungeon spawn? or to many people in the same area for you to get any decent amount of xp/items means the world is to small or not well balanced.
make 3-4-5-10-25 dungeon caves with similar bosses/mobs/drops if you have to.
I agree. I would rather a bigger game world, and more dungeons, than instancing.
And for God's sake, NO SCALING!
if a Dragon lives in that cave, let it be a dragon.
If a Kobol lives in that cave, let it be a Kobold.
Not whatever you need so the party can win and make xp. If you're not strong enough for the Dragon, don't go in that cave. If you're to strong for the Kobold, don't go in that cave.
A big part of the problem here is that since the earlier MMOs had persistent worlds, it has falsely become a requirement or defining feature. Testament to this is the document almost always cited to support the claim that it is a requirement - a document that sees PSW, virtual world, MUD, MMOG and MMORPG as interchangeable terms. Persistence is common to, but not necessary in, almost every client-server environment.
The difference between an MMORPG and a multiplayer RPG is simply the number of players.
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 was coming to post the same thing. Thanks for saving me 16 letters.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
The sun never sets on a sufficiently large number of players.
Sounds like you're vaguely agreeing with me.
I wasn't disputing whether early MMOs were more massive -- they were. I was disputing whether they were "the bomb" -- they weren't (and most players seems to develop the same subconscious distaste for the diminishing-returns-of-fun I mentioned above.)
Not-so-massive multiplayer is just the 'sweet spot' for what players want to interact with; it's the sweet spot of fun. They want a sense of larger community only insofar as it doesn't stomp on their fun (because past a certain size it's more likely to stomp their fun than create their fun)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I agree, Imhotepp, but there's a problem here. Because players that are too strong for that Kobold will go in that cave, keep wiping the Kobolds, causing an issue for players that need to fight those Kobolds.
This is one of several reasons I want to see the power gaps of level grind go away. Imagine a world where those same Kobolds are always at least a little challenge, and you can return to that cave forever and never have it become something that's below you. Imagine what GMs and Event Staff can do in such a world.
Once upon a time....
Er, but what you describe isn't an issue in games with scaling. How many level 85 players are in that level 20 gnoll cave? None. There's no benefit to killing level 20 gnolls, so it doesn't happen.
Scaling vs. No Scaling discussions are purely about content variety. In the simplified game with only kobolds and dragons:
When you get to endgame in Game A, you only fight Dragons. That's it. Just dragons.
When you get to endgame in Game B, you fight both Kobolds and Dragons. Twice the content variety, even though it's admittedly a *little* off to fight high level kobolds.
And in fact "twice the content" is the worst possible example of the true difference in content variety. Typical games have hundreds of mob types, and if you get to endgame and only fight the ~10 tough mobs, that's a huge difference from a game with scaling giving you 100+ mob types.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We've seen that game, Axe. It got boring.
I want a game where Dragons mean something. But not just them, Demons and Liche Kings and Elemental Princes...what have you. But I do want the top MOBs to be special. Hell, I'd like them played by GMs. Roaming the world with goals that we players must stop.
Once upon a time....
MMORPG stands for Massive Microtransaction Operated Role Paying Game. (as per Webster's revised 2010 edition)
Multiplayer Role Playing Game means what it sounds like.
A multiplayer RPG usually just allow a single party to play, even though some like Biowares NWN allowed up to 128 at the same server. I would say that that is the limit, more than 128 players on the same server and it is a MMORPG.
There is also CORPG, like Guildwars, DDO and STO that allows more people in social hubs but only a group when you are out on a adventure.
Not all MMOs are RPGs, there are a few MMOFPS and MMORTS games out there as well.
MMORPG = Virtual Words (Community driven)
Multiplayer = Games you can play with other people online
The first category died with WoW, since then we had just Multiplayer games with seamless world (most of the times instanced) which game developers can charge as they were MMORPG
I am still waiting for the next MMORPG, I ve been waiting 7 years now.
I would have to agree that the term MMO has been butchered and bended since its inception to lack any meaning anymore. If you look at the features that are unique to the first MMOs you can see what differentiated them from previous online games. They had a persistant world where very large numbers of players could interact.
The current crop of MMOs have shifted the gameplay enough that we have to ask "Should we redefine MMO?" or should we define a new term for what seems to be a medley of a bunch of online experiences combined.. For instance, WoW pre-85 is a traditional MMO with a huge persistant world. Post-85, WoW is a CORPG (dungeons) and MOBA (pvp).
Aye with all these genres blending together, mmo is equivalent to the word sport.
Imagine people discussing sport, and some think the discussion is about Tennis, while others talk about football, and both think they talk about the same. It is probably going to be a discussion without much point. As is some of the discussions on this site, and words like haters and trolls get trown around because we don't understand what the other part is on about.
It would really help with some genre definitions if it is possible. I like the words MMORTS and MMOFPS which defines a genre well, just as examples.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
I take pride in the fact that my pencil-and-paper players are as scared of kobolds as they are of dragons - you don't have to be 50 feet tall and have 1000 hp just to pull a lever
I think it's important for your point that every creature have its own endgame - it doesn't have to simply be the level of the creature - it can be the complexity of the lair, the way its debuffs scale with *your* level, the sizes of their swarms, the rate of their respawn, etc. After all, these are all creatures coexisting in the same world - (in my ideal MMO world) there should be an ecological reason dragons haven't eaten all the kobolds.
This isn't a game mechanic you get bored of. What I'm describing is true no matter what game we're talking about.
...and when's the last time you didn't see unique monsters at endgame (and for that matter, what's a MMORPG where you saw every lowbie monster at endgame?)
If a company made the mistake of trying to use only endgame-unique assets for endgame, they'd get called out pretty quick for repetition ("I liked that game, but at you get to a point where all you fight are Dragons and Hydras and it gets boring.")
Players reward devs who are efficient with content creation by praising those games. In typical MMORPGs this means min/maxing re-use of low-level assets (re-using the ones that make sense at endgame.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Exactly.
And re-using old, scaled assets doesn't even mean using Kobolds. There can be mobs that simply don't show up at endgame and that's fine (and often makes sense). But it's smart to scale (re-use) some assets, because it provides a more varied game experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver