I seem to remember some time ago an mmorpg.com staffer chiming in in a similar thread stating that they were covering X non-MMO title because the people that visited the site had shown great interest in it.
Perhaps someone on the mmorpg.com payroll could jump into this thread to clarify the issue. Do you guys believe that a lobby based shooter such as WOT is an MMO, or just a lobby based shooter that has stolen a handful of MMO features such as character progression etc.? Because this would in turn qualify Combat Arms as an mmo. Where does this end really?
Anyways, I would love to hear from someone from this site if you happen to be in the neighbourhood.
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Many people are arguing the literal English wording of the term MMORPG. Personally i don't think genre labels are literal, and i think they are just convenient labels for a group of games.
Don't believe me? I think it would be fun to go to some "MMORPG" sites and see how things are categorized.
First up ... MMORPG.com. If you click on "game list", it will say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games". What is listed under this big MMORPG game list? Amongst others ... we have
Diablo 3, LoL, DDO, the first GW, Vindictus, World of Tanks .. and many that either don't focus on, or have no "massive" MP gameplay.
LoL is listed under Fantasy MMORPG Games. Mechwarrior Online is listed under sci-fi MMORPGs, right above Eve. There are other non-massive MMOs there, you can find the other listings yourself.
DDO, and NWO, and Vindictus are on their top 10 list. Other non-massive MMOs are listed .. you can go look at their whole listing.
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games or web browser based games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world or science-fiction world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player online RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player isoffline and away from the game.
Many people are arguing the literal English wording of the term MMORPG. Personally i don't think genre labels are literal, and i think they are just convenient labels for a group of games.
Don't believe me? I think it would be fun to go to some "MMORPG" sites and see how things are categorized.
First up ... MMORPG.com. If you click on "game list", it will say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games". What is listed under this big MMORPG game list? Amongst others ... we have
Diablo 3, LoL, DDO, the first GW, Vindictus, World of Tanks .. and many that either don't focus on, or have no "massive" MP gameplay.
LoL is listed under Fantasy MMORPG Games. Mechwarrior Online is listed under sci-fi MMORPGs, right above Eve. There are other non-massive MMOs there, you can find the other listings yourself.
DDO, and NWO, and Vindictus are on their top 10 list. Other non-massive MMOs are listed .. you can go look at their whole listing.
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
All i have to say about it is the term MMORPG is being slapped around on everything nowadays wich has an online function (every game is trying to ride the hypetrain). So in fact the term is being wrongly used on many many ocations.
ive said it before and will say it again if a game like WoT is an MMO then why is CoD not an mmo? its the exact same game. but with tanks. and lobby based games like diablo... please...
So all online games as far as these so called sites care are called MMORPG's right now.
MMORPG was coined by marketers to sell a product to people that would be impressed at the time with the whole "massively online" concept. It has become rote and term should be dropped.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Many people are arguing the literal English wording of the term MMORPG. Personally i don't think genre labels are literal, and i think they are just convenient labels for a group of games.Don't believe me? I think it would be fun to go to some "MMORPG" sites and see how things are categorized.First up ... MMORPG.com. If you click on "game list", it will say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games". What is listed under this big MMORPG game list? Amongst others ... we haveDiablo 3, LoL, DDO, the first GW, Vindictus, World of Tanks .. and many that either don't focus on, or have no "massive" MP gameplay. How about whatmmorpg.com? (http://www.whatmmorpg.com/fantasy-mmorpg-games.php)LoL is listed under Fantasy MMORPG Games. Mechwarrior Online is listed under sci-fi MMORPGs, right above Eve. There are other non-massive MMOs there, you can find the other listings yourself. How about mmobomb.com? http://www.mmobomb.com/top-10-free-mmorpgDDO, and NWO, and Vindictus are on their top 10 list. Other non-massive MMOs are listed .. you can go look at their whole listing. I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
Well, for once Narius, I agree with you lol. It's completely true, the addition of these MOBA's RPG's and MMOFPS's is just aggrivating. The game Planetside 2, great game, but not an MMORPG. LoL, another great game, not an MMORPG. These games may just be massively multiplayer online games, but they have no ROLEPLAYING GAME traits. This mistake has carried millions of casuals into the MMORPG community, mistakenly considering MOBA's and MMOFPS's as mmorpg's and further arguing against the P2P model. To me a MMOFPS and MOBAs can totally be F2P, i have no problem with that, people, casuals and hardcore, jump into the game for some action. The cash shop contains just skins or new aesthetic touches that don't effect in-game and couldn't be obtained in-game either. But those communities coming into the MMORPG aspect want teh same in an mmorpg as in a moba or mmofps. It's a shame sites like this label games as such.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
Originally posted by FoeHammerJT MMORPG was coined by marketers to sell a product to people that would be impressed at the time with the whole "massively online" concept. It has become rote and term should be dropped.
It was a term coined by the people who invented the genre to describe it, because there was nothing else like it. Now a bunch of other things that are nothing like original MMOs, and already have better acronyms, are trying to call themselves MMO because
a) It's a buzz term that automatically attracts interest due to big budget successes like WoW(though not for much longer)
b) It allows them to justify shortcomings of the game
c) It allows them to charge more. The gameplay in the new Neverwinter Nights is a pale shadow compared to the gameplay in the old NWN. And guess what, old NWN was free.
I don't know who you're talking about, nor do I think a game is an MMO because an obscure website claims so.
MMOs have a definition, and no matter how hard you want to believe a game fits, it either does or doesn't.
it's like the Middle Class...everyone thinks he's in it.
Or being average. 50% of people aren't there yet.
Speaking of literal meanings, do they no longer teach the difference between average and the median? Sorry for the disruption in your arguing, please proceed.
I seem to remember some time ago an mmorpg.com staffer chiming in in a similar thread stating that they were covering X non-MMO title because the people that visited the site had shown great interest in it.
Perhaps someone on the mmorpg.com payroll could jump into this thread to clarify the issue. Do you guys believe that a lobby based shooter such as WOT is an MMO, or just a lobby based shooter that has stolen a handful of MMO features such as character progression etc.? Because this would in turn qualify Combat Arms as an mmo. Where does this end really?
Anyways, I would love to hear from someone from this site if you happen to be in the neighbourhood.
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Eventually they'll even list Madden 25 on it, you watch.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well i would prefer a crammed pack content game in a small area on release,but a game most definitely needs to be really massive within a short period of time.
You don't want the entire population tripping over each other's toes.You also don't want everyone doing the exact same boss,fighting for the exact same drops,nodes.Problem with going big of course si you need a lot more work to fill that game world in.
This is why lazy developers like to make instances,they don't have to worry about players being crowded because they never see each other fighting the EXACT same Boss.it is not even an argument,instances are exactly like a single player game,or i guess a co op game,you are not competing or playing in the same world as everyone else,you are in your own instance.
The whole idea of a M<MO is to be in a massive world and massively populated,if you are always in instances by your self or a few others,it is less of an MMO than say an arena FPS,Quake/UT99/GOW ect ect.
The only thing i don't like about massive is when devs separate everyone by levels.I don't want to know you MUST all go to certain areas for your level,there should be a mixed ECO system,a system with realism,creatures and people don't inhabit our world based on levels lol.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You can't count number of player can join or will join, then it massive
You can count the limit of player 2/4/10/20/40/100/1000 (lol) then it just multiplayer , if it only 1 player then it singleplayer game.
4/8/10 players game are multiplayer game. because it limit for 4/8/10 players only
It same to 40/80 players limit game.
So i can call a game multiplayer even it have limit to 1000 players , as long as there are limit number of player , call it multiplayer game.
But in MMO , the number of player can join don't limit by game (it don't say this game only for 1000 people) but limit by how much game server can hand. It can go from 2 players to 1000 to 1mil or even more (no limit by game), the number of player depend on how strong the server is ,
but the game itself don't limit how many player can join in. That's why it called MMO massive multiplayer
Just do some search about what massive after my old topic.
Well, for once Narius, I agree with you lol. It's completely true, the addition of these MOBA's RPG's and MMOFPS's is just aggrivating. The game Planetside 2, great game, but not an MMORPG. LoL, another great game, not an MMORPG. These games may just be massively multiplayer online games, but they have no ROLEPLAYING GAME traits. This mistake has carried millions of casuals into the MMORPG community, mistakenly considering MOBA's and MMOFPS's as mmorpg's and further arguing against the P2P model. To me a MMOFPS and MOBAs can totally be F2P, i have no problem with that, people, casuals and hardcore, jump into the game for some action. The cash shop contains just skins or new aesthetic touches that don't effect in-game and couldn't be obtained in-game either. But those communities coming into the MMORPG aspect want teh same in an mmorpg as in a moba or mmofps. It's a shame sites like this label games as such.
Planetside 1 and 2 are referred to as an MMOFPS, not an MMORPG.
Second, he was using the trend of this site and other sites to imply 'MMO' justifiably encompassed all such games and was a phrase without any solid context.
So technically yer actually disagreeing with him still.
Though if that post was sarcasm, I apologise for not catching that.
EDIT: Also to address Rusque, the article actually comments on that issue with the definition of MMO.
The closest the article comes to giving a specific remark would be when they said "...a massively multiplayer scale must simply be measured relative to that of a standard multiplayer game." And even that they were taking as a touchy 'if you have to have a specific'.
It acknowledges pretty clearly that what defines 'massive' is a somewhat fluid, but they are also addressing the case that it is a condition that exists largely relative to every other game. What was massive ten years ago might not qualify now (or inversely if the trend of calling everything multiplayer 'massive' continues) and what is massive now might be dwarfed by the implementation of better technology supporting a larger concurrent user base.
We can understand massive though in the context of what we consider average. Average shooter ranges from 12 all the way up to 64-ish players. Past that, options dwindle to a considerably smaller subset of titles that break into the couple hundreds like MAG, Mount & Blade, and then the current pinnacles of Planetside 1 and 2, WW2 Online, etc whose size of concurrent users can reach a few hundred or so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarIn principle I disagree with you on this, and I do not think those websites agree with you either.If a game is going to be called a Massively Mulitplayer Game, it does need to have a lot of people.LoL may not be an MMORPG, but if it can hold more people than a traditional multiplayer, it is an MMO, therefore it is massive.You may think labels are useless, and they do change. However lables are what we use to differentiate and classify things. Classification is needed to help with any kind of search or research. If I am in the mood for an MMO I don't want a spg even if there is some similarity. Labels help with recognition.Second. While this website may specialize in MMO's, it does not exclusively cater to MMO's, despite it's name. Dairy queen sells more than dairy products too.
And yet .. they list all the games i mentioned as MMORPGs.I am not looking for a debate of what MMORPG should be ... i simply don't care about labels. I am just pointing out that these sties categorize the aforementioned games as such. Not my categorization, theirs.I didn't state they weren't. I stated if they have more people than a traditional multiplayer they are massively multiplayer in some capacity. I guess they feel those games meet that definition.
You may not care about labels but once again labels are important in search and recognition. If you don't know what something is called, it makes it harder to search for it. If you do know it is called it makes it usually much easier to search for the things that will fill whatever desire you have.
I always thought that the "massively multiplayer" in MMORPG applied to the number of possible interactions that were possible between people in a persistent and shared world. It wasn't about a set number of people who could log in, but rather the number of things they could do that would affect each other, especially in a sandbox game.
I want to say this came from an interview or article on that Garriott guy, but if it was, the interview or article is now lost to me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Second, he was using the trend of this site and other sites to imply 'MMO' justifiably encompassed all such games and was a phrase without any solid context.
I claim even less than that. Justifiable or not, that is how the label MMO is used.
No matter how strong or weak an argument is (to oppose this categorization), no one on this site has enough clout to change the categorization on these 3 sites (and many other) i listed, not to mention the whole industry.
Hence, why not just follow the common usage? Is the literal interpretation of a label really that important to people? Do you really expect a piece of cake when something use the phrase "it is a piece of cake"?
Speaking of literal meanings, do they no longer teach the difference between average and the median? Sorry for the disruption in your arguing, please proceed.
They still do. My kids can tell the difference after junior high.
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Yes, and also other sites too.
That is my point. All the websites and the industry are using very loose meaning.
It's been clarified by this site and other's why they list non MMO titles next to their MMO ones.
It's been clarified by these sites and others (like the one Kuinn linked) that at least some of these sites also do not believe such titles to be MMOs even if/when they do list them.
It's also been clarified that there is a more definite definition that constitutes an MMO, even if certain websites, developers, and publishers use it incorrectly.
Just because someone uses a word in the wrong way, does not mean everyone has to jump on the bandwagon.
Even when a sizeable amount of people are in error, they are still in error. Be it a media site, a developer, or otherwise. They are all human, and are all capable of misapplication of phrases as well as faults in logic.
EDIT: Your logic also fails due to your insistence on implying we adhere simply to the literal usage, when we have very clearly noted we are going by a definition, not simply an extension of phrase.
So asking if we interpret everything literally is hyperbole that serves only to detract from any actual point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Exactly, what's more 'mmorpg' is a brand, it would be wrong to change the brand just because they expand their content to include other genres, and when they do include new genre it does not mean they are declaring that those other genres are in fact mmorgs as well - they probably assume people can use their own brains to work it out.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
It's been clarified by this site and other's why they list non MMO titles next to their MMO ones.
It's been clarified by these sites and others (like the one Kuinn linked) that at least some of these sites also do not believe such titles to be MMOs even if/when they do list them.
It's also been clarified that there is a more definite definition that constitutes an MMO, even if certain websites, developers, and publishers use it incorrectly.
Just because someone uses a word in the wrong way, does not mean everyone has to jump on the bandwagon.
Even when a sizeable amount of people are in error, they are still in error. Be it a media site, a developer, or otherwise. They are all human, and are all capable of misapplication of phrases as well as faults in logic.
EDIT: Your logic also fails due to your insistence on implying we adhere simply to the literal usage, when we have very clearly noted we are going by a definition, not simply an extension of phrase.
So asking if we interpret everything literally is hyperbole that serves only to detract from any actual point.
Clarified by who?
Link me to the article for every one of these sites (and IGN, and Gamespot) describing their loose use of the term please.
I insist on nothing. I merely say a) these sites use the term loosely, which is pretty fact by one glance at the links, and b) i will follow common usage ... i never insist you have to.
I will call DDO & NWO MMORPGs. Just let me know what you want to call them, so when you talk about them with new terms, there is no confusion.
Originally posted by Bladestrom Exactly, what's more 'mmorpg' is a brand, it would be wrong to change the brand just because they expand their content to include other genres, and when they do include new genre it does not mean they are declaring that those other genres are in fact mmorgs as well - they probably assume people can use their own brains to work it out.
A game specifically listed under "fantasy MMORPG" does not mean they are classified as such? What ...?
MikeB said it before, I'd have to sift through his posts from the last few years to find it.
And there's the link that's already in the thread for another site, so reposting it seems pointless.
Seriously, read your own thread, and you'll see the links.
And you do insist. By facing question that assume conditions that are false, you are implying that such is our though process without providing any factual basis.
You don't even cite what you put in your opening post truthfully. You posted that a few websites use the label for their game listings and then derived conclusion that the term is being used to generically to refer to the sites contents. This fails to screen how they actually treat the word in articles and application to individual titles and is consequently a premature assumption at best.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You posted that a few websites use the label for their game listings and then derived conclusion that the term is being used to generically to refer to the sites contents. This fails to screen how they actually treat the word in articles and application to individual titles and is consequently a premature assumption at best.
uh? You mean if a site posted a game under "fantasy mmorpg", it actually means something else?
Personally, i will just take their categorization. I doubt you are a site admin and can speak for them.
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
The reason I can't endorse that article's line of thinking is that someone has to set an arbitrary line where massive begins and ends.
Is massive when hundreds of player interact simultaneously? Is it thousands? Do they have to interact within the same space? Meaning, can 5 interact in one instance while 5 interaction in another and so on until you've reached 100?
I personally dont believe in some arbitrary line, I believe in common sense. Common sense says that the game it self must be massively (WoW, EVE, etc) in order to be labeled as MMO or MMORPG, you cant achieve this purely by the size of community alone (LoL, WoT).
When you are playing through a lobby in a small map with few other people you know you arent playing an MMO or MMORPG. When you are playing in a massive game and know that there's hundreds if not thousands of other people doing all kinds of things around the game world, you know that you are now playing an MMO or MMORPG game.
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
The reason I can't endorse that article's line of thinking is that someone has to set an arbitrary line where massive begins and ends.
Is massive when hundreds of player interact simultaneously? Is it thousands? Do they have to interact within the same space? Meaning, can 5 interact in one instance while 5 interaction in another and so on until you've reached 100?
I personally dont believe in some arbitrary line, I believe in common sense. Common sense says that the game it self must be massively (WoW, EVE, etc) in order to be labeled as MMO or MMORPG, you cant achieve this purely by the size of community alone (LoL, WoT).
When you are playing through a lobby in a small map with few other people you know you arent playing an MMO or MMORPG. When you are playing in a massive game and know that there's hundreds if not thousands of other people doing all kinds of things around the game world, you know that you are now playing an MMO or MMORPG game.
So you disagree DDO, Marvel Heroes and NWO are MMORPGs, as some sites have classified them?
it's mostly just an umbrella term now used to categorize games that are multiplayer and played over the internet. it's the same as when people confuse open-world games with sandbox. if you google best sandbox games. GTA and Saints Row pop up. nothing to get bent out of shape over but terms have different meanings to different people.
Comments
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games or web browser based games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world or science-fiction world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player online RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player isoffline and away from the game.
Their you go. What you feel a word should mean and it's actual meaning are two different things.... If you like to argue with the above meaning ..... click the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game.
All i have to say about it is the term MMORPG is being slapped around on everything nowadays wich has an online function (every game is trying to ride the hypetrain). So in fact the term is being wrongly used on many many ocations.
ive said it before and will say it again if a game like WoT is an MMO then why is CoD not an mmo? its the exact same game. but with tanks. and lobby based games like diablo... please...
So all online games as far as these so called sites care are called MMORPG's right now.
Well, for once Narius, I agree with you lol. It's completely true, the addition of these MOBA's RPG's and MMOFPS's is just aggrivating. The game Planetside 2, great game, but not an MMORPG. LoL, another great game, not an MMORPG. These games may just be massively multiplayer online games, but they have no ROLEPLAYING GAME traits. This mistake has carried millions of casuals into the MMORPG community, mistakenly considering MOBA's and MMOFPS's as mmorpg's and further arguing against the P2P model. To me a MMOFPS and MOBAs can totally be F2P, i have no problem with that, people, casuals and hardcore, jump into the game for some action. The cash shop contains just skins or new aesthetic touches that don't effect in-game and couldn't be obtained in-game either. But those communities coming into the MMORPG aspect want teh same in an mmorpg as in a moba or mmofps. It's a shame sites like this label games as such.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
It was a term coined by the people who invented the genre to describe it, because there was nothing else like it. Now a bunch of other things that are nothing like original MMOs, and already have better acronyms, are trying to call themselves MMO because
a) It's a buzz term that automatically attracts interest due to big budget successes like WoW(though not for much longer)
b) It allows them to justify shortcomings of the game
c) It allows them to charge more. The gameplay in the new Neverwinter Nights is a pale shadow compared to the gameplay in the old NWN. And guess what, old NWN was free.
Speaking of literal meanings, do they no longer teach the difference between average and the median? Sorry for the disruption in your arguing, please proceed.
Eventually they'll even list Madden 25 on it, you watch.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well well well, this and other sites say something and thus it must be true!
So I guess this means that all those ultra-conservative sites that said if Obama got re-elected it would bring 1000 years of darkness were right!
Afterall, they said it...
Nope, sorry. I also don't care how many of them call Freemium games F2P games, they are not.
Well i would prefer a crammed pack content game in a small area on release,but a game most definitely needs to be really massive within a short period of time.
You don't want the entire population tripping over each other's toes.You also don't want everyone doing the exact same boss,fighting for the exact same drops,nodes.Problem with going big of course si you need a lot more work to fill that game world in.
This is why lazy developers like to make instances,they don't have to worry about players being crowded because they never see each other fighting the EXACT same Boss.it is not even an argument,instances are exactly like a single player game,or i guess a co op game,you are not competing or playing in the same world as everyone else,you are in your own instance.
The whole idea of a M<MO is to be in a massive world and massively populated,if you are always in instances by your self or a few others,it is less of an MMO than say an arena FPS,Quake/UT99/GOW ect ect.
The only thing i don't like about massive is when devs separate everyone by levels.I don't want to know you MUST all go to certain areas for your level,there should be a mixed ECO system,a system with realism,creatures and people don't inhabit our world based on levels lol.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You can't count number of player can join or will join, then it massive
You can count the limit of player 2/4/10/20/40/100/1000 (lol) then it just multiplayer , if it only 1 player then it singleplayer game.
4/8/10 players game are multiplayer game. because it limit for 4/8/10 players only
It same to 40/80 players limit game.
So i can call a game multiplayer even it have limit to 1000 players , as long as there are limit number of player , call it multiplayer game.
But in MMO , the number of player can join don't limit by game (it don't say this game only for 1000 people) but limit by how much game server can hand. It can go from 2 players to 1000 to 1mil or even more (no limit by game), the number of player depend on how strong the server is ,
but the game itself don't limit how many player can join in. That's why it called MMO massive multiplayer
Just do some search about what massive after my old topic.
Planetside 1 and 2 are referred to as an MMOFPS, not an MMORPG.
Second, he was using the trend of this site and other sites to imply 'MMO' justifiably encompassed all such games and was a phrase without any solid context.
So technically yer actually disagreeing with him still.
Though if that post was sarcasm, I apologise for not catching that.
EDIT: Also to address Rusque, the article actually comments on that issue with the definition of MMO.
The closest the article comes to giving a specific remark would be when they said "...a massively multiplayer scale must simply be measured relative to that of a standard multiplayer game." And even that they were taking as a touchy 'if you have to have a specific'.
It acknowledges pretty clearly that what defines 'massive' is a somewhat fluid, but they are also addressing the case that it is a condition that exists largely relative to every other game. What was massive ten years ago might not qualify now (or inversely if the trend of calling everything multiplayer 'massive' continues) and what is massive now might be dwarfed by the implementation of better technology supporting a larger concurrent user base.
We can understand massive though in the context of what we consider average. Average shooter ranges from 12 all the way up to 64-ish players. Past that, options dwindle to a considerably smaller subset of titles that break into the couple hundreds like MAG, Mount & Blade, and then the current pinnacles of Planetside 1 and 2, WW2 Online, etc whose size of concurrent users can reach a few hundred or so.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I didn't state they weren't. I stated if they have more people than a traditional multiplayer they are massively multiplayer in some capacity. I guess they feel those games meet that definition.
You may not care about labels but once again labels are important in search and recognition. If you don't know what something is called, it makes it harder to search for it. If you do know it is called it makes it usually much easier to search for the things that will fill whatever desire you have.
I always thought that the "massively multiplayer" in MMORPG applied to the number of possible interactions that were possible between people in a persistent and shared world. It wasn't about a set number of people who could log in, but rather the number of things they could do that would affect each other, especially in a sandbox game.
I want to say this came from an interview or article on that Garriott guy, but if it was, the interview or article is now lost to me.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I claim even less than that. Justifiable or not, that is how the label MMO is used.
No matter how strong or weak an argument is (to oppose this categorization), no one on this site has enough clout to change the categorization on these 3 sites (and many other) i listed, not to mention the whole industry.
Hence, why not just follow the common usage? Is the literal interpretation of a label really that important to people? Do you really expect a piece of cake when something use the phrase "it is a piece of cake"?
They still do. My kids can tell the difference after junior high.
Yes, and also other sites too.
That is my point. All the websites and the industry are using very loose meaning.
It's been clarified by this site and other's why they list non MMO titles next to their MMO ones.
It's been clarified by these sites and others (like the one Kuinn linked) that at least some of these sites also do not believe such titles to be MMOs even if/when they do list them.
It's also been clarified that there is a more definite definition that constitutes an MMO, even if certain websites, developers, and publishers use it incorrectly.
Just because someone uses a word in the wrong way, does not mean everyone has to jump on the bandwagon.
Even when a sizeable amount of people are in error, they are still in error. Be it a media site, a developer, or otherwise. They are all human, and are all capable of misapplication of phrases as well as faults in logic.
EDIT: Your logic also fails due to your insistence on implying we adhere simply to the literal usage, when we have very clearly noted we are going by a definition, not simply an extension of phrase.
So asking if we interpret everything literally is hyperbole that serves only to detract from any actual point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Clarified by who?
Link me to the article for every one of these sites (and IGN, and Gamespot) describing their loose use of the term please.
I insist on nothing. I merely say a) these sites use the term loosely, which is pretty fact by one glance at the links, and b) i will follow common usage ... i never insist you have to.
I will call DDO & NWO MMORPGs. Just let me know what you want to call them, so when you talk about them with new terms, there is no confusion.
A game specifically listed under "fantasy MMORPG" does not mean they are classified as such? What ...?
http://www.whatmmorpg.com/fantasy-mmorpg-games.php
Don't tell me they want you to guess the category. Don't tell me they put "Fantasy MMORPG Games" heading up top just because .....
And how do you know what they think? Tell me .. you are an admin of which of these websites?
MikeB said it before, I'd have to sift through his posts from the last few years to find it.
And there's the link that's already in the thread for another site, so reposting it seems pointless.
Seriously, read your own thread, and you'll see the links.
And you do insist. By facing question that assume conditions that are false, you are implying that such is our though process without providing any factual basis.
You don't even cite what you put in your opening post truthfully. You posted that a few websites use the label for their game listings and then derived conclusion that the term is being used to generically to refer to the sites contents. This fails to screen how they actually treat the word in articles and application to individual titles and is consequently a premature assumption at best.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
uh? You mean if a site posted a game under "fantasy mmorpg", it actually means something else?
Personally, i will just take their categorization. I doubt you are a site admin and can speak for them.
I personally dont believe in some arbitrary line, I believe in common sense. Common sense says that the game it self must be massively (WoW, EVE, etc) in order to be labeled as MMO or MMORPG, you cant achieve this purely by the size of community alone (LoL, WoT).
When you are playing through a lobby in a small map with few other people you know you arent playing an MMO or MMORPG. When you are playing in a massive game and know that there's hundreds if not thousands of other people doing all kinds of things around the game world, you know that you are now playing an MMO or MMORPG game.
So you disagree DDO, Marvel Heroes and NWO are MMORPGs, as some sites have classified them?