I still feel that it would be better for both yourselves and your readers if you just launched a RPGguru website seperate from this one. This would give you a home for all non-MMO-RPGs and would give you the freedom to cover whatever you want without feeling it necessary to ask our permission first. I feel so strongly about this I actually started a thread with a Poll in it on this very subject in the 'Site Suggestions' section here at MMORPG.com. Whether you for or against this suggestion you should go and at least vote to let them know if you feel a seperate RPG website is a good idea or not.
Bren
I would agree if those Guru sites weren't completel failures...
Have you visited RTS or FPS Guru?
I put a post up almost two days ago and its still up on the Fps forum recent list....
No one goes there if anything they should kill those sites and combine them with mmorpg.com and make a gaming super site.
Yes I have noticed that but don't you think that may be because they are linking them to a site that mainly RPG fanatics visit? I personally think a RPGguru site would fare much better as it is basically what most people who come here are interested in. The only difference is they come here for MMOs. A seperate site would end debates like this one once and for all.
Important facts: 1. Free to Play games are poorly made. 2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals. 3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE. 4. Community is more important than you think.
I'm not interested in news or forum chat about any game that isn't a classic mmorpg. I already have to spend a lot of time scrolling to get to what I want on this site. If you must add new genres split everything by tabs, not just the gamelist.
My opinion...look up massively multiplayer game first on wikipedia to understand if it fits. If not then you have to come up with a way to differentiate it so the people actually interested in MMO's aren't having to look at either Diablo or Hentai Dating SIm blurbs unless they want to
My recomendation is to remove what we commonly think of as "sandbox" games to their own genre.
Games like Darkfall and Mortal Online have nothing in common with games like WoW, EQ, or Rift. The gameplay is different. PvP and the reasons for it are different. Use of story is different. Even PvE has a completely different focus. Personally, I don't think they belong in the same genre. Sandbox and Themepark are not related at all.
Half of the arguments aroud here about the two are due to Themepark-ers looking at Sandboxes with their Themepark glasses on and Sandbox-ers doing the same to Themeparks. The comparisons and resulting discussions are worthless, so let's make the break and give each their due.
How about a new genre: Free-form Online Roleplaying Game (FFORPG)? Free-form makes more sense than sandbox anyway.
There really isn't even a "debate" about it, so I'm really not sure what you're "agonizing" over. It's clear this site really *wants* to list it (again, I'm guessing, because of the additional traffic it will bring to the site, which would translate into potentially more advertising $$$). Call it cynical, but that's the only reason I can really see that you're making such a big deal about this game in particular.
Even on their own website, Blizzard has Diablo III listed as an "Action RPG", the same as Diablo 1 and 2. WoW is listed as a MMORPG. So even Blizzard isn't "conflicted" over what it is and makes that distinction.
The requirement for an active internet connection is an arbitrary decision made by blizzard, to suit their own ends. Otherwise, the game is a single player game with an *optional* multi-player mode and would remain as such if Blizzard had kept single-player mode off-line.
Here's what seems most fishy to me about it. How many other Action RPGs with optional multiplayer have released in the last several years since this site launched? Most all of them have/had an optional online multiplayer mode. Yet, I don't recall there being a big fuss made over whether or not to list all those on this site. I don't even remember some of them even being mentioned on this site at all. Of course, they also weren't named "Diablo III" which I think has more to do with it than anything else (per the reason in my opening statement).
I personally think, whatever your intentions or what measures you take to "clarify" what it is, placing it on this site will only further help to give people the impression that it is, in fact, a MMORPG, and will color people's "expectations" of what "MMORPGs should have". For example, the real-money Auction House.
I will bookmark this post and refer back to it the first time I see it stated down the road that some other true MMORPG should have real money transactions between players, using "because Diablo III has it" as their reasoning. And you know as well as I do that it'll happen.
My personal opinion? Discuss news items about Diablo III as "additional content", but do not grant D3 a place on the game list. By definition, it doesn't belong here.
If you start going down that road, where a game could be given a spot on the list "if you just look at it the right way", then you might as well just change the name of the site to MORPG.com, and remove the "massively" part. At least then the name of the site, and its implied focus, would be more accurately represented.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Just a note: Go to the Game List and see the "Genre" tab? That's getting reworked to not have the setting, but instead say "CORPG, MMORPG, MMORTS, MMOFPS, Action-MMO, MMOG," and so on and so forth.
That's just the tip of the ice-berg on how we're going to make it easier over time to find the news and views you care most about. It won't be the last change.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
Interesting. Well, a drastic change from time to time is a good thing, so will be interesting to see how the site layout will end up to be.
Regarding Diablo 3, unless I'm mistaken there's one very big difference between D3 and GW2/Vindictus/DDO. All those 3 last ones have in common that they have at least some persistent world areas, namely the city/quest hubs, even if the rest of the areas are instanced, and in those you'll find all the usual RPG elements, like NPC merchants, trainers etc.
From what I saw so far - but I could be wrong - D3 doesn't have that. D3 looks closer to a Battlefield, Unreal or MW multiplayer game where you gather up at an out-of-game portal or board, after which you enter a map.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
That makes a lot more sense than trying to run 50 different websites all related to gaming in one fashion or another. The only downfall is, not every game needs to be including and people are going complain when "their" game isn't on represented. It's a slippery slope.
I am heavily against this. The site is called mmorpg.com and should focus on MMORPGS only thats the reason why I am here. Basically its the only site covering the mmorpg genre.
By adding NON mmorpgs (Dota, ARPGS, MMOFPS, MMORTS) you are not sticking to the site name. Why not just make another site (same design) and call it action.mmorpg.com ?
Also keep in mind that mmorpg and mmofps-actionrpgs gamers don't get along very well, so there could be even more flamewars and thats something not needed.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I for one am rarely if ever interested in 'the other types'. I come here to read up on MMOs be they good, bad or indifferent (though in the past couple years I see more of the latter two). I suppose it's natural to want to add the other types of games not just because it adds additional info to the the genre as it changes but also because it gives you more to work with as potential $$/graft from advertisements. The site has to use new means to remain interesting competitive and current.
An example was when they allowed the 'The Syndicate' leader to write articles. At least he hasn't (after his initial one or two so far as I've seen) mentioned the guild repeatedly. He still gets to put the logo up on his articles and his 'bio' blurb tells us he's Dragons from....etc etc.
That wouldn't have been acceptable a year or two back. No favoritism. But now, with the need for interesting articles (I don't find his article overly stimulating but they aren't my area of interest) it's okay for minor 'plugs', a distinct change from the no favorites rule of (not so) long ago.
I was glad to read the OP article. When I come here I want to read about MMOs. The unfortunate side effect is that the main page will still be 'cluttered', I think with not-quite MMO game articles but small irritations can be tolerated.
The massive part of MMORPG does not have a definition set in stone. People look at it in different ways. Massive also means playing online with hundreds or thousands of other players does not mean they have to be at one place at one time.
The definition of "Massively" meaning hundreds or thousands sharing the same virtual space came about with that specific setup. Before games like UO, EQ1, etc hit the market, the term "massively multiplayer" didn't exist, at least not in any meaningful context. It has very specific meaning and relates to a very specific set of circumstances which differentiate it from being just "a RPG with an online multiplayer mode". It has had the same, established definition for over a decade now. Two of those elements are a shared, persistent world, and hundreds or thousands of players inhabiting and potentially interacting in that shared persistent world.
The term "massive" in regards to online gameing has never been used to describe 8, 16, 32 or even 36 people sharing the same online space. Only now, with Diablo 3, are people suddenly trying to fudge the term to have some broader, less specific meaning.
If someone says "Hey, are you going to play "X" when it comes out? It's a new MMORPG being developed." You know exactly what kind of game that person is talking about... something in the same category as EQ, WoW, etc. That understanding only exists *because* the term has had that established definition for as long as the genre's existed.
It's like if someone tells you they're buying a car, you're not going to imagine them riding a motorcycle off the dealer lot.
We can't just suddenly decide ten+ years on, "Oh, Massively Multiplayer means whatever we want it to mean to suit our own ends", or the terms become meaningless. It's that kind of careless disregard for established definitions that results in so many debates and disagreements over what a game is or isn't, or does or doesn't have.
Words are given meaning for a reason, to establish a solid and universally recognized point-of-reference for discussion to take place. When people start adapting their own, ever-liquid, definition of what something means, and insist that *their* definition is the correct one, then it makes discussing or even debating related topics very difficult, because people can't even agree on what it is they're discussing in the first place. This is why I will always defer to established definitions of a term, instead of going with "whatever I want it to mean".
Diablo 3, just like Diablo 1 and 2, Dungeon Siege I, II and presumably III and other games of that type are categorized as Action RPG, or perhaps "Dungeon Crawlers". They have an optional multiplayer mode. Multiplayer is not inherent or "mandatory" as part of the play experience as it is in a MMORPG. They are different animals.
To conveniently want to change the genre of a game that is clearly defined as "Action RPG" - by the developer themself, no less - to being a MMORPG, just so it'll be a "cozier fit" on a MMORPG-focused website seems... well... dubious at best. To want to conveniently change the definition of an established term, like Massively Multiplayer, for the same end is equally dubious.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think this was a smart decision, good job guys. In particular, I'm glad you're separating these games by sub-categories within the genre itself, and I commend you for it.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Thats probably for the best. Yes your readers are discussing D3 in great detail on this site. Its an online RPG.
So you've decided to include news on this game on your site. Thats probably just plain smart. Gives you more things to cover, and you know at least a good deal of your readership will be interested. Thats a fine choice. I commend you folks for it.
Words are given meaning for a reason, to establish a solid and universally recognized point-of-reference for discussion to take place. When people start adapting their own, ever-liquid, definition of what something means, and insist that *their* definition is the correct one, then it makes discussing or even debating related topics very difficult, because people can't even agree on what it is they're discussing in the first place. This is why I will always defer to established definitions of a term, instead of going with "whatever I want it to mean".
And yet their is not a specific meaning or official definition for Massive part. What ever you wrote is your opinion and how you describe the massive part in MMORPG. So yes as long as their is no universal meaning for it,people will go with 'whatever i want to think'. because you can't force your opinions on others.
I think this site should be about any games that are played online via PC. There's nothing wrong with expanding your reach. Just because you were only MMORPGs to begin with, doesn't mean that is all you can ever be. I never understood the nerds who rage because you dared to post an article about a regular offline RPG or something that is online but not an RPG. I suspect if you browse their post history you would see that they regularly rage over just about anything.
Expand your reach. I support it.
Currently playing: Rift Played: SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot World of Warcraft, AoC
While the industry is changing and maybe the boundaries are being pushed, a lot of games are boarder line, and a lot of games are just not mmorpg.
The way I view mmorpg is massive multi player online role playing game. There are a lot of games that are online yes, but a lot of them are not massive.
Take for instance world of tanks, 15v15 on a given number of maps nothing massive about 30 folks in the same place. However wot got away with being on this site by having a chat lobby system that folks can sit in and talk. It is still in my eyes a co-op player map just like counter strike or team fortress.
I just think this site and others push the boundaries, and go hey look its online and folks play, in my eyes just because the game is online via the Internet its and mmo, if that were the case then ever game on steam would qualify for the mmo title.
Oh well that's my 2 copper's with and its not worth much.
Words are given meaning for a reason, to establish a solid and universally recognized point-of-reference for discussion to take place. When people start adapting their own, ever-liquid, definition of what something means, and insist that *their* definition is the correct one, then it makes discussing or even debating related topics very difficult, because people can't even agree on what it is they're discussing in the first place. This is why I will always defer to established definitions of a term, instead of going with "whatever I want it to mean".
And yet their is not a specific meaning or official definition for Massive part. What ever you wrote is your opinion and how you describe the massive part in MMORPG. So yes as long as their is no universal meaning for it,people will go with 'whatever i want to think'. because you can't force your opinions on others.
There *is* a universal meaning for it. You are simply choosing to ignore it, and quite frankly, it's a rather disingenuous stance you're taking at this point.
Ignoring the facts is not an argument against them.
For one, the precedent was set - over a decade ago - that Massively Multiplayer refers to *hundreds or thousands of players co-inhabiting the same virtual world, at the same time". It was coined for games like Ultima Online, Everquest 1, Asheron's Call 1, etc; games that are, by definition, MMORPGs. It has *never* been used to define games like the Diablo series, Dungeon Siege or other games of their ilk. It hasn't even been a debate until relatively recently that anything *but* a MMORPG could qualify as one.
The basic definition has always been in terms of number of players simultaneously co-existing in a persistent online world, and the numbers have always been described as "hundreds or thousands". It has never been any different.
Blizzard themself categorize Diablo 3 as an Action RPG; which you can see for yourself right at this link, the same as they do for Diablo I (bottom of the page) and Diablo II (bottom-left corner below Diablo II and SCII). Meanwhile, they very clearly categorize WoW as a MMORPG (same page as Diablo II and III). Are you going to tell Blizzard they're wrong because you, Chilliesauce of the MMORPG.com forums, say otherwise?
Here is the common, accepted and established definition straight from Wikipedia:
"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. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world."
That is the basic definition of a MMORPG, and has been for over a decade now since the first ones hit the market.
Diablo III does not meet the basic, established features of what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG. Which is why, coincidentally enough, Blizzard does not call it one.
You are 100% verifiably and demonstrably wrong. You can argue otherwise, twist, distort and spin it all day long 'til your fingers fall off. At the end of the day, the facts do not support your statement. Precedent does not support your statement. Common-sense does not support your statement. You can not find *one* shred of proof from any viable source that will show otherwise.
So if you want to continue twisting around the meanings of terms and adapting them to "mean whatever you want them to", to whatever end, by all means.. knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised when those of us who understand and acknowledge the significance of what those terms mean and what they indicate don't go along with it.
Words have meanings, and those meanings have significance. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Comments
Yes I have noticed that but don't you think that may be because they are linking them to a site that mainly RPG fanatics visit? I personally think a RPGguru site would fare much better as it is basically what most people who come here are interested in. The only difference is they come here for MMOs. A seperate site would end debates like this one once and for all.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Why not just have sublistings?
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
I'm not interested in news or forum chat about any game that isn't a classic mmorpg. I already have to spend a lot of time scrolling to get to what I want on this site. If you must add new genres split everything by tabs, not just the gamelist.
My opinion...look up massively multiplayer game first on wikipedia to understand if it fits. If not then you have to come up with a way to differentiate it so the people actually interested in MMO's aren't having to look at either Diablo or Hentai Dating SIm blurbs unless they want to
Another site for rpgs is one way.
My recomendation is to remove what we commonly think of as "sandbox" games to their own genre.
Games like Darkfall and Mortal Online have nothing in common with games like WoW, EQ, or Rift. The gameplay is different. PvP and the reasons for it are different. Use of story is different. Even PvE has a completely different focus. Personally, I don't think they belong in the same genre. Sandbox and Themepark are not related at all.
Half of the arguments aroud here about the two are due to Themepark-ers looking at Sandboxes with their Themepark glasses on and Sandbox-ers doing the same to Themeparks. The comparisons and resulting discussions are worthless, so let's make the break and give each their due.
How about a new genre: Free-form Online Roleplaying Game (FFORPG)? Free-form makes more sense than sandbox anyway.
Bill,
There really isn't even a "debate" about it, so I'm really not sure what you're "agonizing" over. It's clear this site really *wants* to list it (again, I'm guessing, because of the additional traffic it will bring to the site, which would translate into potentially more advertising $$$). Call it cynical, but that's the only reason I can really see that you're making such a big deal about this game in particular.
Even on their own website, Blizzard has Diablo III listed as an "Action RPG", the same as Diablo 1 and 2. WoW is listed as a MMORPG. So even Blizzard isn't "conflicted" over what it is and makes that distinction.
The requirement for an active internet connection is an arbitrary decision made by blizzard, to suit their own ends. Otherwise, the game is a single player game with an *optional* multi-player mode and would remain as such if Blizzard had kept single-player mode off-line.
Here's what seems most fishy to me about it. How many other Action RPGs with optional multiplayer have released in the last several years since this site launched? Most all of them have/had an optional online multiplayer mode. Yet, I don't recall there being a big fuss made over whether or not to list all those on this site. I don't even remember some of them even being mentioned on this site at all. Of course, they also weren't named "Diablo III" which I think has more to do with it than anything else (per the reason in my opening statement).
I personally think, whatever your intentions or what measures you take to "clarify" what it is, placing it on this site will only further help to give people the impression that it is, in fact, a MMORPG, and will color people's "expectations" of what "MMORPGs should have". For example, the real-money Auction House.
I will bookmark this post and refer back to it the first time I see it stated down the road that some other true MMORPG should have real money transactions between players, using "because Diablo III has it" as their reasoning. And you know as well as I do that it'll happen.
My personal opinion? Discuss news items about Diablo III as "additional content", but do not grant D3 a place on the game list. By definition, it doesn't belong here.
If you start going down that road, where a game could be given a spot on the list "if you just look at it the right way", then you might as well just change the name of the site to MORPG.com, and remove the "massively" part. At least then the name of the site, and its implied focus, would be more accurately represented.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Just a note: Go to the Game List and see the "Genre" tab? That's getting reworked to not have the setting, but instead say "CORPG, MMORPG, MMORTS, MMOFPS, Action-MMO, MMOG," and so on and so forth.
That's just the tip of the ice-berg on how we're going to make it easier over time to find the news and views you care most about. It won't be the last change.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.
Interesting. Well, a drastic change from time to time is a good thing, so will be interesting to see how the site layout will end up to be.
Regarding Diablo 3, unless I'm mistaken there's one very big difference between D3 and GW2/Vindictus/DDO. All those 3 last ones have in common that they have at least some persistent world areas, namely the city/quest hubs, even if the rest of the areas are instanced, and in those you'll find all the usual RPG elements, like NPC merchants, trainers etc.
From what I saw so far - but I could be wrong - D3 doesn't have that. D3 looks closer to a Battlefield, Unreal or MW multiplayer game where you gather up at an out-of-game portal or board, after which you enter a map.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I support this move, good job guys.
Healing the world since 2005
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
That makes a lot more sense than trying to run 50 different websites all related to gaming in one fashion or another. The only downfall is, not every game needs to be including and people are going complain when "their" game isn't on represented. It's a slippery slope.
Power to the Sheeple
I am heavily against this. The site is called mmorpg.com and should focus on MMORPGS only thats the reason why I am here. Basically its the only site covering the mmorpg genre.
By adding NON mmorpgs (Dota, ARPGS, MMOFPS, MMORTS) you are not sticking to the site name. Why not just make another site (same design) and call it action.mmorpg.com ?
Also keep in mind that mmorpg and mmofps-actionrpgs gamers don't get along very well, so there could be even more flamewars and thats something not needed.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I like the idea. MMORPG genre has expanded a lot in last few years to incorporate all kind of online games into it.
I for one am rarely if ever interested in 'the other types'. I come here to read up on MMOs be they good, bad or indifferent (though in the past couple years I see more of the latter two). I suppose it's natural to want to add the other types of games not just because it adds additional info to the the genre as it changes but also because it gives you more to work with as potential $$/graft from advertisements. The site has to use new means to remain interesting competitive and current.
An example was when they allowed the 'The Syndicate' leader to write articles. At least he hasn't (after his initial one or two so far as I've seen) mentioned the guild repeatedly. He still gets to put the logo up on his articles and his 'bio' blurb tells us he's Dragons from....etc etc.
That wouldn't have been acceptable a year or two back. No favoritism. But now, with the need for interesting articles (I don't find his article overly stimulating but they aren't my area of interest) it's okay for minor 'plugs', a distinct change from the no favorites rule of (not so) long ago.
I was glad to read the OP article. When I come here I want to read about MMOs. The unfortunate side effect is that the main page will still be 'cluttered', I think with not-quite MMO game articles but small irritations can be tolerated.
The massive part of MMORPG does not have a definition set in stone. People look at it in different ways. Massive also means playing online with hundreds or thousands of other players does not mean they have to be at one place at one time.
@Chilliesauce
The definition of "Massively" meaning hundreds or thousands sharing the same virtual space came about with that specific setup. Before games like UO, EQ1, etc hit the market, the term "massively multiplayer" didn't exist, at least not in any meaningful context. It has very specific meaning and relates to a very specific set of circumstances which differentiate it from being just "a RPG with an online multiplayer mode". It has had the same, established definition for over a decade now. Two of those elements are a shared, persistent world, and hundreds or thousands of players inhabiting and potentially interacting in that shared persistent world.
The term "massive" in regards to online gameing has never been used to describe 8, 16, 32 or even 36 people sharing the same online space. Only now, with Diablo 3, are people suddenly trying to fudge the term to have some broader, less specific meaning.
If someone says "Hey, are you going to play "X" when it comes out? It's a new MMORPG being developed." You know exactly what kind of game that person is talking about... something in the same category as EQ, WoW, etc. That understanding only exists *because* the term has had that established definition for as long as the genre's existed.
It's like if someone tells you they're buying a car, you're not going to imagine them riding a motorcycle off the dealer lot.
We can't just suddenly decide ten+ years on, "Oh, Massively Multiplayer means whatever we want it to mean to suit our own ends", or the terms become meaningless. It's that kind of careless disregard for established definitions that results in so many debates and disagreements over what a game is or isn't, or does or doesn't have.
Words are given meaning for a reason, to establish a solid and universally recognized point-of-reference for discussion to take place. When people start adapting their own, ever-liquid, definition of what something means, and insist that *their* definition is the correct one, then it makes discussing or even debating related topics very difficult, because people can't even agree on what it is they're discussing in the first place. This is why I will always defer to established definitions of a term, instead of going with "whatever I want it to mean".
Diablo 3, just like Diablo 1 and 2, Dungeon Siege I, II and presumably III and other games of that type are categorized as Action RPG, or perhaps "Dungeon Crawlers". They have an optional multiplayer mode. Multiplayer is not inherent or "mandatory" as part of the play experience as it is in a MMORPG. They are different animals.
To conveniently want to change the genre of a game that is clearly defined as "Action RPG" - by the developer themself, no less - to being a MMORPG, just so it'll be a "cozier fit" on a MMORPG-focused website seems... well... dubious at best. To want to conveniently change the definition of an established term, like Massively Multiplayer, for the same end is equally dubious.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I think it was the only decision you could make. It is getting harder and harder to distinquish what does and what does not fit.
I think this was a smart decision, good job guys. In particular, I'm glad you're separating these games by sub-categories within the genre itself, and I commend you for it.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Thats probably for the best. Yes your readers are discussing D3 in great detail on this site. Its an online RPG.
So you've decided to include news on this game on your site. Thats probably just plain smart. Gives you more things to cover, and you know at least a good deal of your readership will be interested. Thats a fine choice. I commend you folks for it.
And yet their is not a specific meaning or official definition for Massive part. What ever you wrote is your opinion and how you describe the massive part in MMORPG. So yes as long as their is no universal meaning for it,people will go with 'whatever i want to think'. because you can't force your opinions on others.
I like this. Games are evolving and it's nice to have a change of pace from time to time.
I think this site should be about any games that are played online via PC. There's nothing wrong with expanding your reach. Just because you were only MMORPGs to begin with, doesn't mean that is all you can ever be. I never understood the nerds who rage because you dared to post an article about a regular offline RPG or something that is online but not an RPG. I suspect if you browse their post history you would see that they regularly rage over just about anything.
Expand your reach. I support it.
Currently playing:
Rift
Played:
SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot
World of Warcraft, AoC
Baldur's Gate must be on the MMO list. No exceptions.
When did you start playing "old school" MMO's. World Of Warcraft?
While the industry is changing and maybe the boundaries are being pushed, a lot of games are boarder line, and a lot of games are just not mmorpg.
The way I view mmorpg is massive multi player online role playing game. There are a lot of games that are online yes, but a lot of them are not massive.
Take for instance world of tanks, 15v15 on a given number of maps nothing massive about 30 folks in the same place. However wot got away with being on this site by having a chat lobby system that folks can sit in and talk. It is still in my eyes a co-op player map just like counter strike or team fortress.
I just think this site and others push the boundaries, and go hey look its online and folks play, in my eyes just because the game is online via the Internet its and mmo, if that were the case then ever game on steam would qualify for the mmo title.
Oh well that's my 2 copper's with and its not worth much.
seems fair to me.
There *is* a universal meaning for it. You are simply choosing to ignore it, and quite frankly, it's a rather disingenuous stance you're taking at this point.
Ignoring the facts is not an argument against them.
For one, the precedent was set - over a decade ago - that Massively Multiplayer refers to *hundreds or thousands of players co-inhabiting the same virtual world, at the same time". It was coined for games like Ultima Online, Everquest 1, Asheron's Call 1, etc; games that are, by definition, MMORPGs. It has *never* been used to define games like the Diablo series, Dungeon Siege or other games of their ilk. It hasn't even been a debate until relatively recently that anything *but* a MMORPG could qualify as one.
The basic definition has always been in terms of number of players simultaneously co-existing in a persistent online world, and the numbers have always been described as "hundreds or thousands". It has never been any different.
Blizzard themself categorize Diablo 3 as an Action RPG; which you can see for yourself right at this link, the same as they do for Diablo I (bottom of the page) and Diablo II (bottom-left corner below Diablo II and SCII). Meanwhile, they very clearly categorize WoW as a MMORPG (same page as Diablo II and III). Are you going to tell Blizzard they're wrong because you, Chilliesauce of the MMORPG.com forums, say otherwise?
Here is the common, accepted and established definition straight from Wikipedia:
"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. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world."
That is the basic definition of a MMORPG, and has been for over a decade now since the first ones hit the market.
Diablo III does not meet the basic, established features of what makes a MMORPG a MMORPG. Which is why, coincidentally enough, Blizzard does not call it one.
You are 100% verifiably and demonstrably wrong. You can argue otherwise, twist, distort and spin it all day long 'til your fingers fall off. At the end of the day, the facts do not support your statement. Precedent does not support your statement. Common-sense does not support your statement. You can not find *one* shred of proof from any viable source that will show otherwise.
So if you want to continue twisting around the meanings of terms and adapting them to "mean whatever you want them to", to whatever end, by all means.. knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised when those of us who understand and acknowledge the significance of what those terms mean and what they indicate don't go along with it.
Words have meanings, and those meanings have significance. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops