On a more serious note, as others have pointed out this game is as much an MMO if not more then MOBA games or games like Guild Wars 1.
I am interested in the perspective of MMORPG.com reviewers and players because I am too an MMORPG fan and will view this game from an MMORPG players perspective as I've never played diablo 1 or 2.
It features no persistent world aspect, and the game world is heavily instanced and segregated between players with no common area, so it's not an MMO.
If Diablo 3 is to be considered a MMO, then so should Farmville.
Originally posted by Ceridith No. It features no persistent world aspect, and the game world is heavily instanced and segregated between players with no common area, so it's not an MMO. If Diablo 3 is to be considered a MMO, then so should Farmville.
Seems to be a moot point for those who operate this site.
Originally posted by SBFord As a reminder, we at MMORPG.com are working actively to ensure that a wide variety of games that have ties to traditional MMORPGs are covered here on the site if nowhere else than our Games List. Our scope is widening to cover MOBAs, MMORTS, MMOFPS, traditional RPGs, action-RPGs and more that have even what some would call 'cursory' connections to MMORPGs. Our plan is to make the Games List "sortable" by genre similar to those listed above.
To SB fans, please stop making our demographic look bad.Stop invading threads that have nothing to do with sandboxes.
I voted yes. Whether or not it gets added, Diablo3 will be talked about on this site. It is going to be big and many posters here will have comments about it. The RMT issue has direct bearing on MMORPGs and other games of that kind which affects us all. The effect of not including it will only dilute the arguements across many topic and limit our ability as site members to have all of the information, good and bad, in front of us.
If it can't be seen by some, it doesn't make it any less true . . . the things that happen with D3 will directly affect Blizzrd's Titan MMO and by extension, all of us and future games. Do not think for a moment that this is an isolated game from an inconsequential developer and producer.
I am not going to buy D3 because of the RMT aspects, I don't care for Bnet and the persistent on-line play. REgardless of how I feel about the game personally, I think it should be here because it is going to impact the MMORPG (whatever that is) community.
2. If you want to join the sheep, add Diablo 3 to your site and give them more free advertising while other small/starting/innovative RPG game companies will stay in the shadow and struggle to get publicity and can't afford an advertisment budget. So this will be definitely gregarism and favoritism to add Diablo 3 here.
The 1st and 2nd 'M's should be taken taken together for 'Massively Multiplayer', meaning multiplayer on a massive scale, rather than only 32 people top a server.
On those grounds, I don't think D3 should be included.
It will still fit "Massively Multiplayer" as in 3 Million people playing the game online.
As Nibs said, Massively Multiplayer refers to a 'massive' amount of players playing the game together in the same persistent world. Diablo 3 will limit players to playing together in small groups on instanced servers that are separate from one another, with no common gameplay area.
If all it takes is a lot of people playing a game online, then Modern Warfare 2 is an MMO... and I sincerely hope you understand that MW2 should not be considered an MMO.
Voted NO. I will be playing it but I don't consider this type of game ANYTHING like a persistent world that keeps going when you are not online. It's a top down, hack and slash RPG with very minor multiplayer elements. Maybe there should be a new Guru site, like just plain RPG where you can add this type of game along with Torchlight and those, IMO, stupid MOBAs. While we're at it, add GW1 to that site too. ;D
Massively - Lots of people playing ... yep even if only in "instances" oh wait... we have MMO's that already do the instancing thing...
Multiplayer - Multiple people teaming up to achieve gains. Yep.
Online - Here is the one fuzzy element. Is it because the world is unique for each person? Like Guild Wars? I consider that an MMO (though it's taken time to get there). Is the online persistent so that games like LoL or HoN shouldn't be considered? I don't know that should be the case. I have to wonder with games like Skyrim whether or not it will fulfill or qualify for this category.
RPG - This is the weakest link. What defines RPG. Someone playing IC would say that OOC is not RPG. Some define it as playing another character doing a job is an RPG. At what point do we declare we're not in an RPG? A FPS like Modern Warfare could EASILY be put into this category.
Let's use the example:
Battlefield 2:
Massive - Yes
Multiplayer - Yes
Online - Yes
RPG - You're playing a character that you can level overtime. Does this fulfull the requirements? I could argue both ways on this honestly.
I'd like to add that if you do add Diablo 3 and etc. Please keep the top voted and Most popular lists seperate, meaning MMO and Non MMO. Current forum activity seperation would be nice as well. Bah.... I just don't want to see the MMO coverage, discussion and etc. to be burried under non MMO stuff. I have other sites for non MMO's the only reason I frequent here is the fact that this site generally has the best coverage and discussions on MMO's.
I voted yes. Personally I have zero interest in D3, but most of the very reasons I'm expecting to dislike it, move it closer to the realm of the MMORPG, rather than just the standard RPG. So I say, have at it.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
No, it's not an MMO. People complain about Guild Wars not being an MMO but it at least has centralized hubs for others to gather and chat and play together in.
Why not just make a site for single/multiplayer games? I'd honestly rather read about them all separately so I have specific places to go when I want that specific information. You guys did this with the RTS site, so I think if you can swing the staff for it, a site for single-player games would be a great idea.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Originally posted by lizardbones Massive - pretty sure it will be Multiplayer - check Online - check RPG - check It should be added.
That 1st 'M' is for 'massively', not 'massive'. The 1st and 2nd 'M's should be taken taken together for 'Massively Multiplayer', meaning multiplayer on a massive scale, rather than only 32 people top a server. On those grounds, I don't think D3 should be included.
It will still fit "Massively Multiplayer" as in 3 Million people playing the game online.
As Nibs said, Massively Multiplayer refers to a 'massive' amount of players playing the game together in the same persistent world. Diablo 3 will limit players to playing together in small groups on instanced servers that are separate from one another, with no common gameplay area. If all it takes is a lot of people playing a game online, then Modern Warfare 2 is an MMO... and I sincerely hope you understand that MW2 should not be considered an MMO.
A game where every player enters the world one at a time would still be an MMORPG if there are a massive number of players. The world is persistent, but it doesn't have to be the same instance of the world. The definition is the players interacting with each other. There is an auction that is global to all players in a given region where the players interact with each other.
Call of Duty, World of Tanks, etc. all fit the definition. You can have your own personal interpretation, but D3 fits the definition. Farmville fits the definition as well.
** edit ** Farmville isn't referenced on these forums as a game people play, so it probably shouldn't have it's own section.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The 1st and 2nd 'M's should be taken taken together for 'Massively Multiplayer', meaning multiplayer on a massive scale, rather than only 32 people top a server.
On those grounds, I don't think D3 should be included.
It will still fit "Massively Multiplayer" as in 3 Million people playing the game online.
As Nibs said, Massively Multiplayer refers to a 'massive' amount of players playing the game together in the same persistent world. Diablo 3 will limit players to playing together in small groups on instanced servers that are separate from one another, with no common gameplay area.
If all it takes is a lot of people playing a game online, then Modern Warfare 2 is an MMO... and I sincerely hope you understand that MW2 should not be considered an MMO.
A game where every player enters the world one at a time would still be an MMORPG if there are a massive number of players. The world is persistent, but it doesn't have to be the same instance of the world. The definition is the players interacting with each other. There is an auction that is global to all players in a given region where the players interact with each other.
Call of Duty, World of Tanks, etc. all fit the definition. You can have your own personal interpretation, but D3 fits the definition. Farmville fits the definition as well.
** edit **
Farmville isn't referenced on these forums as a game people play, so it probably shouldn't have it's own section.
How is the game world in any way persistent in Diablo 3?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the game world will randomly generate each time you join a new instanced server, the same as it did in Diablo 2. So again I ask, how is that in any way a persistent world? And this still also doesn't even account for the fact that only small groups of players at a time will even be on an individual server that has it's own randomly generated instance of the 'world'... and when all the players leave the server, the instance goes poof and that 'world' is wiped out.
Diablo 3 simply is not an MMO. It may have a few features that are similar to what MMOs have, but at the end of the day Diablo 3 is just not make use of persistent world mechanics. If Diablo 3 is to be considered an MMO, then dozens, of not hundreds, of additional games will also fall into the MMO category, at which point the term MMO will mean mean pretty much everything, and the term itself will lose any useful meaning.
Comments
Add it or the terrorists will win.
On a more serious note, as others have pointed out this game is as much an MMO if not more then MOBA games or games like Guild Wars 1.
I am interested in the perspective of MMORPG.com reviewers and players because I am too an MMORPG fan and will view this game from an MMORPG players perspective as I've never played diablo 1 or 2.
Yes. I've made a few posts about this years ago. It should be included.
You have everything to gain by including it. Do you honestly think people will leave MMORPG.com if you included Diablo 3? lol. Stupid.
No.
It features no persistent world aspect, and the game world is heavily instanced and segregated between players with no common area, so it's not an MMO.
If Diablo 3 is to be considered a MMO, then so should Farmville.
To SB fans, please stop making our demographic look bad.Stop invading threads that have nothing to do with sandboxes.
SW:TOR Graphics Evolution and Comparison
SW:TOR Compare MMO Quests, Combat and More...
Definitions can change over time, when it was the big two UO vs Diablo 1 we didn't consider Diablo an MMO.
Things have changed since then, a lot... What makes an MMO an MMO has been redefined to include Diablo type games.
I voted yes. Whether or not it gets added, Diablo3 will be talked about on this site. It is going to be big and many posters here will have comments about it. The RMT issue has direct bearing on MMORPGs and other games of that kind which affects us all. The effect of not including it will only dilute the arguements across many topic and limit our ability as site members to have all of the information, good and bad, in front of us.
If it can't be seen by some, it doesn't make it any less true . . . the things that happen with D3 will directly affect Blizzrd's Titan MMO and by extension, all of us and future games. Do not think for a moment that this is an isolated game from an inconsequential developer and producer.
I am not going to buy D3 because of the RMT aspects, I don't care for Bnet and the persistent on-line play. REgardless of how I feel about the game personally, I think it should be here because it is going to impact the MMORPG (whatever that is) community.
Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.
Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS
Diablo3 is not a mmorpg in my mind, but that goes for other titles on this site, so I dont see why Diablo3 shouldn't be included.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
It's such a big topic, it would help the site's popularity if it had coverage.
NO
1. it's simply not a mmo
2. If you want to join the sheep, add Diablo 3 to your site and give them more free advertising while other small/starting/innovative RPG game companies will stay in the shadow and struggle to get publicity and can't afford an advertisment budget. So this will be definitely gregarism and favoritism to add Diablo 3 here.
I voted yes...
You added LoL, and Diablo is like full seamless MMO compared to that one heheheh.
If you didn't add LoL, i would say no
If LoL is here, Diablo should be
No. I don't think Diablo III will be an MMORPG as we know it. Heck, even GW and GA are no MMORPG n my book...
As Nibs said, Massively Multiplayer refers to a 'massive' amount of players playing the game together in the same persistent world. Diablo 3 will limit players to playing together in small groups on instanced servers that are separate from one another, with no common gameplay area.
If all it takes is a lot of people playing a game online, then Modern Warfare 2 is an MMO... and I sincerely hope you understand that MW2 should not be considered an MMO.
Voted NO. I will be playing it but I don't consider this type of game ANYTHING like a persistent world that keeps going when you are not online. It's a top down, hack and slash RPG with very minor multiplayer elements. Maybe there should be a new Guru site, like just plain RPG where you can add this type of game along with Torchlight and those, IMO, stupid MOBAs. While we're at it, add GW1 to that site too. ;D
I can see how the fuzziness exists:
Massively - Lots of people playing ... yep even if only in "instances" oh wait... we have MMO's that already do the instancing thing...
Multiplayer - Multiple people teaming up to achieve gains. Yep.
Online - Here is the one fuzzy element. Is it because the world is unique for each person? Like Guild Wars? I consider that an MMO (though it's taken time to get there). Is the online persistent so that games like LoL or HoN shouldn't be considered? I don't know that should be the case. I have to wonder with games like Skyrim whether or not it will fulfill or qualify for this category.
RPG - This is the weakest link. What defines RPG. Someone playing IC would say that OOC is not RPG. Some define it as playing another character doing a job is an RPG. At what point do we declare we're not in an RPG? A FPS like Modern Warfare could EASILY be put into this category.
Let's use the example:
Battlefield 2:
Massive - Yes
Multiplayer - Yes
Online - Yes
RPG - You're playing a character that you can level overtime. Does this fulfull the requirements? I could argue both ways on this honestly.
Yes.
Gaming community: IRONFIST
New World: Lilith - US East
WoW Guild: IRONFIST <Burning Legion> Alliance(We transferred to Illidan)
WoW Guild: IRONFIST <Illidan> Horde
SWOTR: IRONFIST <Satele Shan> Empire/Republic
I'd like to add that if you do add Diablo 3 and etc. Please keep the top voted and Most popular lists seperate, meaning MMO and Non MMO. Current forum activity seperation would be nice as well. Bah.... I just don't want to see the MMO coverage, discussion and etc. to be burried under non MMO stuff. I have other sites for non MMO's the only reason I frequent here is the fact that this site generally has the best coverage and discussions on MMO's.
I voted yes. Personally I have zero interest in D3, but most of the very reasons I'm expecting to dislike it, move it closer to the realm of the MMORPG, rather than just the standard RPG. So I say, have at it.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
No, it's not an MMO. People complain about Guild Wars not being an MMO but it at least has centralized hubs for others to gather and chat and play together in.
Why not just make a site for single/multiplayer games? I'd honestly rather read about them all separately so I have specific places to go when I want that specific information. You guys did this with the RTS site, so I think if you can swing the staff for it, a site for single-player games would be a great idea.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
On a side note: I loved D1/D2 and logged way too many hours on Battle.net playing but I have no interest at all in D3.
A game where every player enters the world one at a time would still be an MMORPG if there are a massive number of players. The world is persistent, but it doesn't have to be the same instance of the world. The definition is the players interacting with each other. There is an auction that is global to all players in a given region where the players interact with each other.
Call of Duty, World of Tanks, etc. all fit the definition. You can have your own personal interpretation, but D3 fits the definition. Farmville fits the definition as well.
** edit **
Farmville isn't referenced on these forums as a game people play, so it probably shouldn't have it's own section.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Only if you add Borderlands/Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, Drakensang Online, LinkRealms, etc.
Why not? It is newsworthy, its of great interest to many of the readers here, and if you dont like it you have the option to not read the articles.
How is the game world in any way persistent in Diablo 3?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the game world will randomly generate each time you join a new instanced server, the same as it did in Diablo 2. So again I ask, how is that in any way a persistent world? And this still also doesn't even account for the fact that only small groups of players at a time will even be on an individual server that has it's own randomly generated instance of the 'world'... and when all the players leave the server, the instance goes poof and that 'world' is wiped out.
Diablo 3 simply is not an MMO. It may have a few features that are similar to what MMOs have, but at the end of the day Diablo 3 is just not make use of persistent world mechanics. If Diablo 3 is to be considered an MMO, then dozens, of not hundreds, of additional games will also fall into the MMO category, at which point the term MMO will mean mean pretty much everything, and the term itself will lose any useful meaning.