I'm surprised this game hasn't reached MMORPG.com yet.

csthao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbQk5VXKNE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

It'll definitely be a game I would love to play.

TheDarkrayne

Well it has absolutely no RPG elements. It's pure FPS. It's a damn good example of a MMOFPS.. but it's not even a hybrid. Planetside has progression and unlocks and stuff, rpg elements. ARMA III doesn't. Yeh, you could say you are roleplaying a marine or whatever.. but you could say the same for CoD. RPG's are generally defined by the features and this just doesn't have those features.

WaldemarThe

How about this?

http://www.pearlabyss.com/

Nothing about that MMORPG on here as far as I checked.

xeniar

ii wanted to reply the same. but i could not figure out if he was truely serieus or a weak troll attempt...

TheDarkrayne

Originally posted by WaldemarThe

How about this?

http://www.pearlabyss.com/

Nothing about that MMORPG on here as far as I checked.

That trailer actually looks promising.

Axehilt

I guess if Planetside shows up in the list, MMOFPSes are fair game and this is a reasonable suggestion.

Is ARMA3 actually fun though?

A BF3 map achieves high quality gameplay through hand-crafted iteration. They originally create rough maps, then play the hell out of them, constantly tuning the terrain, respawn points, vehicle respawn frequency and quantiy, and capture points until the map consistently produces high-quality FPS combat with reasonable combat frequency.

It has always seemed like ARMA3 smartly users "sandbox" as a way to justify a lack of hand-crafted iteration and hand off the responsibility to players.  Which implies the game is not going to consistently deliver high-quality combat. Meaning I probably wouldn't be able to just pick up the game, log onto a random server, and have fun.  Or at least that's definitely the way the series has seemed to me from the outside.  I just picture most experiences involving an excessive amount of empty travel time followed by a brief combat sequence, and overall feeling less dense and fun than a typical FPS.

This impression may be wrong, and I'd love to hear that it has some sort of dynamic respawn system (perhaps even Planetside-style mobile respawn points!) to help have good combat pacing.

Sulaa

Well if you put ARMA 3 as MMOFPS then you need to put Battlefield and Call of Duty as MMOFPS too.  I think that may need to be needed to end with hypocrisy - games like WarFace are listed as MMOFPS and Call of Duty is not, when there is no diffrence between them aside of that Call of Duty does have single player campaign you can play on your PC offline.

Aside of that - no diffrence - team PVP games played in forms of instanced matches.  

TL;DR

If there is Tribes Ascend or LoL  listed as MMO and ARMA 3 proposed as MMOFPS and Richard Aioshi referring to Crossfire (chinese  shooter something like CS 1.6 meet very early Call of Duty)  as MMO - then Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield need to be added as MMOFPS too, because what's the reason not to?  (serious question).

Axehilt

Originally posted by Sulaa

Well if you put ARMA 3 as MMOFPS then you need to put Battlefield and Call of Duty as MMOFPS too.  I think that may need to be needed to end with hypocrisy - games like WarFace are listed as MMOFPS and Call of Duty is not, when there is no diffrence between them aside of that Call of Duty does have single player campaign you can play on your PC offline.

Aside of that - no diffrence - team PVP games played in forms of instanced matches.  

TL;DR

If there is Tribes Ascend or LoL  listed as MMO and ARMA 3 proposed as MMOFPS and Richard Aioshi referring to Crossfire (chinese  shooter something like CS 1.6 meet very early Call of Duty)  as MMO - then Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield need to be added as MMOFPS too, because what's the reason not to?  (serious question).

Uh, no looks pretty distinct to me:

• Planetside 1: 600 player limit per continent
• ARMA: Looks like 200 player limit (100v100)?
• Battlefield: 64 players
• Tribes Ascend: 32 players
• Call of Duty: 18 players
• League of Legends: 10 players

 

Sulaa

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Sulaa

Well if you put ARMA 3 as MMOFPS then you need to put Battlefield and Call of Duty as MMOFPS too.  I think that may need to be needed to end with hypocrisy - games like WarFace are listed as MMOFPS and Call of Duty is not, when there is no diffrence between them aside of that Call of Duty does have single player campaign you can play on your PC offline.

Aside of that - no diffrence - team PVP games played in forms of instanced matches.  

TL;DR

If there is Tribes Ascend or LoL  listed as MMO and ARMA 3 proposed as MMOFPS and Richard Aioshi referring to Crossfire (chinese  shooter something like CS 1.6 meet very early Call of Duty)  as MMO - then Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Battlefield need to be added as MMOFPS too, because what's the reason not to?  (serious question).

Uh, no looks pretty distinct to me:

• Planetside 1: 600 player limit per continent
• ARMA: Looks like 200 player limit (100v100)?
• Battlefield: 64 players
• Tribes Ascend: 32 players
• Call of Duty: 18 players
• League of Legends: 10 players

 

There is also world persistene thing, but let's not complicate it.  

Additonally ARMA 3 is not really created for 200 players. It is theoretically possible to put that many on one server, but is not something that's practicaed, I think biggest servers in Arma 3 alpha have like 60 people or something like that.

and besides Battlefield 3 as far as I know also had 'unintended unofficial 128 and 250 player servers'.  

Last but not least  - you list all those games yet LoL you listed as 'lower category'  with 10 players is listed on this site and referred as MMO?  Same with World of Tanks (30 players ) , Diablo 3 (4 players ) , Dota 2 (10 players) ?    Richard Aioshi referred to Crossfire as MMO and this game is like max 20 players I think?  

So why all those above games I mentioned are listed but CoD and Battlefield are not?

 

 

Axehilt

Originally posted by Sulaa

Last but not least  - you list all those games yet LoL you listed as 'lower category'  with 10 players is listed on this site and referred as MMO?  Same with World of Tanks (30 players ) , Diablo 3 (4 players ) , Dota 2 (10 players) ?    Richard Aioshi referred to Crossfire as MMO and this game is like max 20 players I think?  

So why all those above games I mentioned are listed but CoD and Battlefield are not? 

No clue, and it makes no sense.

It makes a lot more sense to pick some (admittedly arbitrary) number like 100.  And if a game's server can't officially handle that many players in the same "map", it's not an MMO.  What constitutes a "map" is admittedly a little vague, but essentially it's a shared seemless game space.

"Officially" handling the player count is important, as most games' limit can be hacked and increased to some much larger value, but typically the limit is in there because that's the point just before the game starts breaking (both for gameplay and technical reasons.)  If I hack myself a 100-player D3 private server that hasn't really made D3 an MMO.

So yeah to your earlier point about ARMA, I have no clue how many players are officially supported so it's entirely possible it's only like 64 player servers and not an MMO.

Sulaa

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Sulaa

Last but not least  - you list all those games yet LoL you listed as 'lower category'  with 10 players is listed on this site and referred as MMO?  Same with World of Tanks (30 players ) , Diablo 3 (4 players ) , Dota 2 (10 players) ?    Richard Aioshi referred to Crossfire as MMO and this game is like max 20 players I think?  

So why all those above games I mentioned are listed but CoD and Battlefield are not? 

No clue, and it makes no sense.

It makes a lot more sense to pick some (admittedly arbitrary) number like 100.  And if a game's server can't officially handle that many players in the same "map", it's not an MMO.  What constitutes a "map" is admittedly a little vague, but essentially it's a shared seemless game space.

"Officially" handling the player count is important, as most games' limit can be hacked and increased to some much larger value, but typically the limit is in there because that's the point just before the game starts breaking (both for gameplay and technical reasons.)  If I hack myself a 100-player D3 private server that hasn't really made D3 an MMO.

So yeah to your earlier point about ARMA, I have no clue how many players are officially supported so it's entirely possible it's only like 64 player servers and not an MMO.

Agreed. Lol, Diablo 3 or WoT listed on mmorpg.com makes no sense, well at least until you don't list hundreads of other mulitplayer online games as well either.  Obviously they're here because they're popular and industry (some developers, press, revenue reports and market analys) are calling games MMO using other characteristics.

Usually MMO is tagged on every game that is server-based - meaning you can play only connecting to game company servers and cannot play offline, on LAN or set up your own servers officially.  + when there is on-going payment system attached.(usually microtransactions, more rarely sub).   

That's when 'industry' call game an MMO.  Not when it does have players or presistence or seamlessness or some other thing.  For me as a player it does not make sense gameplay wise and frankly it's annoying and potentially damaging behaviour, but business call and define products using what's important to it - business model in wide sense.

Games that  game companies have total control over: 

1.you have to play on game company servers

2. developer can modify your experience at all times by patching game server and mandatory patching of your client 3.developer decide when your game experience ends by turning servers off 

4.have on-going payment system attached

are called MMO by industry and they don't care about gameplay characteristics much. 

 

As for your proposed 'from 100 people it's MMO'.   What about peristence? Does it matter if game is composed on temporary instanced matches arenas - i.e. would Call of Duty be MMO if it had 100 + player matches?  Or does it have to have persistant game world / map   - like Planetside 2 do?

rounner

We do discuss non mmorpgs here too, like skyrim. It gives us something to compare with and hope for incorporation of ideas into mmorpgs. Plus if were too fussy we'd just argue about definitions all the time.