Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so they can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
"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 can't determine whether or not you actually care about MMOs, because you're not playing one.
So by this logic, because I play MMOs for the 'wrong reasons' (that are defined by you), I am not playing an MMO?
That is some bizzare logic that doesn't make sense to me but I'm sure it does to you somehow.
And seriously, if I care about MMOs, why wouldn't I want better stories in my MMOs?
Cool, you didn't read. Again.
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
And yet again, the sentence preceding and following it helps explain it's meaning.
EDIT: If you really don't get it, just say so. I would be perfectly willing to clarify myself.
"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 realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
And yet again, the sentence preceding and following it helps explain it's meaning.
Nice dodging of the question there.
Like I said, why can't MMOs have awesome stories / great mechanics like a single player game?
Why limit MMOs just because historically they've been awful at it?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so you can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
To give you choice?
Remember an MMO doesn't need interaction, virtual world, or anything else you stated. It just needs to have the capability of having a lot of people online in the game at the same time. Thats it.
A good one will have those things but certainly doesn't need them to be called an MMO.
All those other things you stated are just your wish list of what an MMO should have.
So you are stating they are not playing MMO's (as defined by you) and are playing them wrong, or for the wrong reasons (as defined by you).
This is just another way of saying that the games are not real MMO's and people are playing them wrong. Just another rant (soft one albeit) about Real MMO's and Real players.
edit - anytime you get an urge to say this is the way something or someone or whatever should be, you really need to start asking why you feel it should be that way. Usually it is a bias on your end.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
i still care about mmorpg's but i dont really think mmo dev's care about the old school sandbox community anymore. and i cant really blame them too much considering we are a very small niche in the mmo community that is mostly filled by carebears. occasionally i see an upcoming mmo that perks my interest for a little while until they inevitably show that they're not really a sandbox at all, i guess this new wave of quasi sandboxes coming out should really be re-classified as a sandpark? blending of themepark and sandbox but not truly a sandbox.
Like I said, why can't MMOs have awesome stories / great mechanics like a single player game?
Why limit MMOs just because historically they've been awful at it?
I didn't dodge it if you'd go and actually read my post. I'm not going to requote every piece back to you every time you pose a question I already had an answer to.
Especially if the question is based on a false premise.
"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 definitely care about MMORPG's, (MMO's not so much) but can't say I'm very interested in what is currently available.
In fact, I've been playing over 5 months now on a DAOC shard that is reset to 2003 and having a terrific time.
I do have my eye out on some of the up coming titles as I see some indications of new innovation and ideas that might draw me back once again to a new game.
And if not, heck, I can always return to EVE for another go.
Send me a pm if you do decide to return to EVE. We need a new sheriff in Providence
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan
I didn't dodge it if you'd go and actually read my post. I'm not going to requote every piece back to you every time you pose a question I already had an answer to.
Especially if the question is based on a false premise.
This is getting funny (and a bit sad) as all you've said in your previous post is 'you aren't playing an MMO because you aren't wanting the good parts from MMOs'.
Which makes no sense since 'good parts from MMOs' are apparently your personal preference.
We come back to the original question 'Who decides what an MMO is? You?'
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so you can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
To give you choice?
Remember and MMO doesn't need interaction, virtual world, or anything else you stated. It just needs to have the capability of having a lot of people online in the game at the same time. Thats it.
All those other things you stated are just your wish list of what an MMO should have.
So you are stating they are not playing MMO's (as defined by you) and are playing them wrong, or for the wrong reasons (as defined by you). And really thats all your saying.
No I'm not if you'd read my post.
I even clarified against the point you try to claim in my first post.
" I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I stated my notion right up front.
"Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one makes no sense."
This is a very different argument. I'm not simply stating 'people don't play MMOs'. I'm stating that the reason people play MMOs has no correlation to the potential qualities of the MMO as a platform for gaming.
That how we play them shows very little distinction from how we play offline or small scale games I use as the reaffirming point that MMOs as a platform have not seen strong application of any of their unique values.
When you and others choose to latch onto a sentence which I stated in the damn post was not to be taken literally, it makes it very hard to have a meaningful or valid conversation.
"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
This is getting funny (and a bit sad) as all you've said in your previous post is 'you aren't playing an MMO because you aren't wanting the good parts from MMOs'.
Which makes no sense since 'good parts from MMOs' are apparently your personal preference.
We come back to the original question 'Who decides what an MMO is? You?'
So now you're just going to lie and claim I said something I didn't? Really?
"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 don't care so much about next gen. Infact I think there is only so much they can do with a PC, and I dont care if it is 2013
BUT :
I do care that mmos are crap for the fact that there not made for community and Open world !
Bad ideas ?
1) f2p = GARBAGE
2) dynamic events are killing the social interactions
3) Dungeon finders are killing the social interactions
4) Dynamic Realms and servers are killing the social interactions
Some may call this next gen...I call it crap and bad ideas, not next gen.
I couldn't agree with you more. since the mmorpg genre started catering to the ADHD generation and thinking that queuing up for a dungeon from anywhere in the world is a great idea I've wanted to boot someone in the mouth. prime example of everything bad is Neverwinter.. queue up , zerg the gd dungeon .. you have lvl 29's mixed with lvl 21's .. I just spam keys like a mad man.. and WIN!!!! could it get any more stupid than this? not to mention the stupid amount of loot drops which makes it's full retard (I wouldn't call it a crafting system) pointless. no economy...
I swear like many of you guys I am scouring the web daily.. sometimes two or three times a day coming to sites like this waiting for something worth while to come out and pull me in like Everquest 2 did for 6+ years. I hope EQ Next fills the gap so until then I am stuck hopping around from mmo to mmo just trying to entertain myself.
Christ i'm sure I also said this for SWTOR and TSW...
well TBH I went and did the pre order for BF4.. I will be playing that for the next few months hoping that something comes along and gives me a chance to meet and make some friends from all over the world. ( yes I still am in touch with friends from EQ2 on a weekly basis after all these years) CRAFT for hours on end and be able to flip my items for some good coin on the AH, and lay in bed or sitting at work plotting out that night's mayhem and misadventure...
so until then I hope we all find our happy place in the mmo genre .. very soon.
I did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must have the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them. That is both the good and bad point, the fact that it is so broad you can do anything with it, and it is so broad you can make games that have virtually no relation to each other other than Must have the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time.
Someone can, and many do, play an MMO the exact same way as on offline single player gamer, and while it may not make sense to you, if they are in a game that has the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time it's an MMO, just not the ones you like and/or they are not playing the way you do. It is still every bit an MMO as any of the new or old greats.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
People that say there is no need to group are wrong. Last time i checked, you cant solo raids and dungeons. So yes current MMOs REQUIRE you to group to complete all the content. But nothing is worse than logging on and sitting there for 45 minutes at level 25 trying to find people to group with to finish group content and you cant find them so you cant progress and you sit there with a thumb up your ass for 45 minutes. To me that is the worst thing ever.
I did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must of the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them.
Yeah not the argument. You're talking about the game. I'm talking about the infrastructure.
Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO. That's not the problem and it just cycles right back to my point of 'Why is it an MMO?"
The freedom of choice for grouping or interaction is in no way limited by other online infrastructures and in some cases are probably more effective choices as far as filtering and controlling your own player experience both online and off.
My point, to state it again, is that the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform.
EDIT: And you keep hammering on with "Someone can, and many do, play an MMO the exact same way as on offline single player game..." Going so far as to accuse me of not understanding the concept.
And it again has to have been made by ignoring what I wrote, both in my original post and the following ones, including that which you responded to. Otherwise you would have taken where I said this...
((I even clarified against the point you try to claim in my first post.
" I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I stated my notion right up front.
"Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one makes no sense."))
As a hint that perhaps I wasn't simply railing on how people play the genre and instead how we are constructing it.
But by all means, keep making the same misleading argument.
"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 did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must of the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them.
Yeah not the argument. You're talking about the game. I'm talking about the infrastructure.
Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO. That's not the problem and it just cycles right back to my point of 'Why is it an MMO?"
The freedom of choice for grouping or interaction is in no way limited by other online infrastructures and in some cases are probably more effective choices as far as filtering and controlling your own player experience both online and off.
My point, to state it again, is that the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform.
But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not. That infrastructure is just part of your wishlist, not a requirement.
Therefore your question of whether someone actually is playing an MMO is only based on your wishlist, not the requirement.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so you can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
To give you choice?
It started out as a choice, now group content in an mmo is just like pvp became. Something they tag onto a game just to say they have it.
But the question he's asking that none of you really want to answer is, if they made these mmos that you all love to play single player games how would that change how you play it ? Why is it an mmo if making it a single player game would probably improve your time spent doing it.
It's not about doing it wrong. It is what it is. If you're not playing an mmo for the online multiplayer aspect of the game you're playing a bad single player game with other people who in all likelihood actually detract from your enjoyment not add to it.
That is why making mmos so solo player friendly has damaged them so much. If the market for single player or " solo " play is really so big developers should be putting more effort into making games like skyrim instead of the trash they're wasting their money on now. Right now trying to get both types of ppl all under one roof is just making poor/mediocre games for both groups of people.
Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so you can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
To give you choice?
It started out as a choice, now group content in an mmo is just like pvp became. Something they tag onto a game just to say they have it.
But the question he's asking that none of you really want to answer is, if they made these mmos that you all love to play single player games how would that change how you play it ? Why is it an mmo if making it a single player game would probably improve your time spent doing it.
It's not about doing it wrong. It is what it is. If you're not playing an mmo for the online multiplayer aspect of the game you're playing a bad single player game with other people who in all likelihood actually detract from your enjoyment not add to it.
That is why making mmos so solo player friendly has damaged them so much. If the market for single player or " solo " play is really so big developers should be putting more effort into making games like skyrim instead of the trash they're wasting their money on now. Right now trying to get both types of ppl all under one roof is just making poor/mediocre games for both groups of people.
I have answered it, when I said the person may play them the exact same way.
The group content that become just like pvp, tacked on, is still a choice. IMO more of a choice than it was before because solo play is actually viable now.
For me, if say wow became an offline single player game, the only thing it would take away would be my ability to interact with people, which is a big one. I may still play the exact same. How a person chooses to play does not determine if it is an MMO.
You might be playing it like a bad single player game, but it is still an MMO.
I say people want to play a game as good as skyrim with tons of other people. Devs are just having trouble trying to mesh those two ideas. Whether they interact with those people or not is a different choice alltogether, but just having them there changes the environment, IMO for the better (usually) by adding a layer of randomness/dynamics that an spg doesn't have.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must of the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them.
Yeah not the argument. You're talking about the game. I'm talking about the infrastructure.
Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO. That's not the problem and it just cycles right back to my point of 'Why is it an MMO?"
The freedom of choice for grouping or interaction is in no way limited by other online infrastructures and in some cases are probably more effective choices as far as filtering and controlling your own player experience both online and off.
My point, to state it again, is that the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform.
But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not. That infrastructure is just part of your wishlist, not a requirement.
Therefore your question of whether someone actually is playing an MMO is only based on your wishlist, not the requirement.
Let me just leave this post pyramid intact so I can illustrate clearly the failing here.
You see that argument you just made? That one where you say "But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not."
Now, what do you think I meant when I wrote "Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO."?
Did I say there was a requirement beyond that? No?
Then where is your argument even establishing a precedent to be made?
You also mixed words up again. When talking about the infrastructure it's the underlying element upon which the game is built. Not the game itself.
You keep trying to claim i am rambling about a 'wishlist' when I can be quoted directly as stating "the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform." meaning that it's not in my belief that the elements I am promoting are part of the MMOs we currently play and neither does it extoll it as my personal paradise.
It's instead me remarking that we are building a game on a platform without real regard to the distinguishing value of the platform, opting to copy and past the design for an entirely different platform into it and making it fit in only a loose sense.
So cycling back on the question you seem to be focusing on.
"So does one play an MMO, or are they playing something else in it's guise?"
You have to ignore how I have explained the notion is built not on the premise that people are not playing MMOs, but that the MMOs we have are essentially other games packed into the MMO platform, rather than a game built to capitalize on the potential myriad values of the MMO platform.
You have to ignore that the remark rests on the notion that there are systems and options of game experiences that can be created on that platform, yet we have not sought to really explore these potential values.
EDIT: To sum up, you have to ignore the very thing you continue to ignore from my first post onward. That I am pointing out the fact that producing a game on a given platform, and not taking advantage of that platforms potential values in favor of replicating the same experience you can get from a different platform, means you are not developing a game for that platform as much as it is simply on that platform.
It's like building a first person shooter in Warcraft 3. Sure it can be done, but that takes no advantage of what the platform can deliver in favor of shoehorning a different game onto it.
"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 did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must of the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them.
Yeah not the argument. You're talking about the game. I'm talking about the infrastructure.
Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO. That's not the problem and it just cycles right back to my point of 'Why is it an MMO?"
The freedom of choice for grouping or interaction is in no way limited by other online infrastructures and in some cases are probably more effective choices as far as filtering and controlling your own player experience both online and off.
My point, to state it again, is that the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform.
But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not. That infrastructure is just part of your wishlist, not a requirement.
Therefore your question of whether someone actually is playing an MMO is only based on your wishlist, not the requirement.
Let me just leave this post pyramid intact so I can illustrate clearly the failing here.
You see that argument you just made? That one where you say "But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not."
Now, what do you think I meant when I wrote "Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO."?
Did I say it was a requirement? No? Then where is your argument even establishing a precedent to be made?
You also mixed words up again. When talking about the infrastructure it's the underlying element upon which the game is built. Not the game itself.
You keep trying to claim i am rambling about a 'wishlist' when I can be quoted directly as stating "the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform." meaning that it's not in my belief that the elements I am promoting are part of the MMOs we currently play and neither does it extoll it as my personal paradise.
So cycling back on the question you seem to be focusing on.
"So does one play an MMO, or are they playing something else in it's guise?"
You have to ignore how I have explained the notion is built not on the premise that people are not playing MMOs, but that the MMOs we have are essentially other games packed into the MMO platform, rather than a game built to capitalize on the potential myriad values of the MMO platform.
You have to ignore that the remark rests on the notion that there are systems and options of game experiences that can be created on that platform, yet we have not sought to really explore these potential values.
The precedent was made by you when you said that your not even playing MMO’s. Yes your tried to backtrack but you backtracked only by putting a wishlist of you’re the requirements, or infrastructure as you say, of what an MMO is.
By saying that, you directly implied that it was a requirement.
You can try and couch it and backtrack all you want, but in the end you still believe they are not playing mmo’s. You said it, not me or anyone else in this thread.
Regarding this statement, “So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise.
They are absolutely playing an MMO. Here once again you show that you are implying that they are not MMO’s, again implying that only the ones that have the infrastructure that you deem correct are MMO’s.
Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do is completely irrelevant to the argument, “Are they MMO’s”
So not once but twice you imply that people are not playing MMO's. Once you you said that he wasn't really playing one and again, when you state So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise. And those are based on your notion that they could have an infrastructure that sets them apart.
That infrastructure is only what makes a good MMO, or a social MMO, a mmo that does not have it is still an MMO. At best that infrastructure only makes a sub-genre of MMO, a suffix.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I used to care very much for MMO's. But over the last few years it's just been disappointment after disappointment. My last hope is TESO, if I don't like that then I'm sure I'll be done with MMO's. I also think that bringing them to consoles is really hurting them too.
The precedent was made by you when you said that your not even playing MMO’s. Yes your tried to backtrack but you backtracked only by putting a wishlist of you’re the requirements, or infrastructure as you say, of what an MMO is.
By saying that, you directly implied that it was a requirement.
You can try and couch it and backtrack all you want, but in the end you still believe they are not playing mmo’s. You said it, not me or anyone else in this thread.
Regarding this statement, “So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise.
They are absolutely playing an MMO. Here once again you show that you are implying that they are not MMO’s, again implying that only the ones that have the infrastructure that you deem correct are MMO’s.
Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do is completely irrelevant to the argument, “Are they MMO’s”
Except that's false, as that's the final sentence to my first post, which I have to assume still you have not actually read or you'd realize I started with the notion of MMOs as an infrastructure.
And you again make the mistake of terms. Referring to the 'wishlist' again where I have noted the potential values the infrastructure provides for play is not the infrastructure itself, but rather the unique elements that can be delivered through it.
It is by your dismissal of what I have actually said, that you could come to the conclusion that my words mean the opposite of what I actually wrote.
That fact I am referencing parts of my first post to refute your claims still, is hint enough that I'm not 'backtracking', but rather repeating what I have already said in a vain hope that you might eventually get it.
For example, how many times have I already quoted this part from my first post?
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
Don't be shy, count it up. Those two sentences right there are pretty important, as they pretty clearly stated my inquiry wasn't a literal question of if what they are playing is an MMO or not.
Or for that matter, the sentence you quoted in your own post.
"So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise?"
When that question right there was capping my first post where I stated directly "Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one..." and ",taking the infrastructure of an MMO and developing a game that has no strong reason to be played online,"...
And the fact it was a question posed after I already noted "It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I even made the (admittedly somewhat cryptic) remark "We play MMOs, but whether or not we play an MMO because it's an MMO is the issue."
Does that sentence not sound like "Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do..."?
That was all from my first post. No backtracking needed, just a bunch of quotes from what should have been read in the first place.
My first post alone just rebuked the claims you try to make here.
"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
The precedent was made by you when you said that your not even playing MMO’s. Yes your tried to backtrack but you backtracked only by putting a wishlist of you’re the requirements, or infrastructure as you say, of what an MMO is.
By saying that, you directly implied that it was a requirement.
You can try and couch it and backtrack all you want, but in the end you still believe they are not playing mmo’s. You said it, not me or anyone else in this thread.
Regarding this statement, “So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise.
They are absolutely playing an MMO. Here once again you show that you are implying that they are not MMO’s, again implying that only the ones that have the infrastructure that you deem correct are MMO’s.
Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do is completely irrelevant to the argument, “Are they MMO’s”
Except that's false, as that's the final sentence to my first post, which I have to assume still you have not actually read or you'd realize I started with the notion of MMOs as an infrastructure.
And you again make the mistake of terms. Referring to the 'wishlist' again where I have noted the potential values the infrastructure provides for play is not the infrastructure itself, but rather the unique elements that can be delivered through it.
It is by your dismissal of what I have actually said, that you could come to the conclusion that my words mean the opposite of what I actually wrote.
That fact I am referencing parts of my first post to refute your claims still, is hint enough that I'm not 'backtracking', but rather repeating what I have already said in a vain hope that you might eventually get it.
For example, how many times have I already quoted this part from my first post?
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
Don't be shy, count it up. Those two sentences right there are pretty important, as they pretty clearly stated my inquiry wasn't a literal question of if what they are playing is an MMO or not.
Or for that matter, the sentence you quoted in your own post.
"So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise?"
When that question right there was capping my first post where I stated directly "Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one..." and ",taking the infrastructure of an MMO and developing a game that has no strong reason to be played online,"...
And the fact it was a question posed after I already noted "It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I even made the (admittedly somewhat cryptic) remark "We play MMOs, but whether or not we play an MMO because it's an MMO is the issue."
Does that sentence not sound like "Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do..."?
That was all from my first post. No backtracking needed, just a bunch of quotes from what should have been read in the first place.
My first post alone just rebuked the claims you try to make here.
No matter how many times you try and state you didn't say it, you still implied that they are not MMO's twice.
And your ONLY refence to your claim that they are not MMO's is that they are not living up to the potential that you feel they have, or that they are not using the potential infrastructure you feel they have.
Once again I'm stating your infrastructure is irrelevant to what makes an MMO therefore any statement you have have whether something is a real mmo or not, or whether someone is playing an mmo or not based on that list is irrelevent.
The issues is not are we playing them because they are mmo's. The issue is you are questioning whether they are even MMO's
"So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise?" This is questioning whether they are MMO's and your only reference for why they might not be an MMO is your stated infrastructure.
You stated he wasn't playing an MMO. And your only reference for that is your stated infrastructure.
You are trying to be sophisticted about it, but in the end you are still just questioning whether they are MMO's based on your stated infrastructure. But your infrastucture is irrelevant to the question are they MMO's.
edit - I don't think most people even care if they are playing MMO's or not, they just care if they are playing a fun game and if they can play them with a little or a lot of the other people
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I think it's intended to not be unplayable solo - which you confuse for being intended to play solo.
every car has airbags so you're intended to crash it ? I mean why would it have airbags if you're not intended to crash it...
that's your argument.
No, you're comparison is completely wrong and inappropriate. Airbags are a safety measure and you are not intended to crash it but you might unintentionally do. This is not comparable in any way.
Last time I checked a lot of MMOs penalise you if you level up in a group. I have tried levelling up with friends and it's much slower, quests take twice as long if they are the collect x and if they are the kill variety you don't get enough xp. From what I have seen traditional MMO questing encourages solo levelling.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Venge, you just quoted a post you responded to, which rebukes the response you wrote. You're getting more dismissive.
And once again you fail to understand that infrastructure is not the game, it's the infrastructure. It's rather literally the only thing that makes an MMO an MMO.
To perhaps make this easier on you since you obviously don't get it, the 'infrastructure' of an MMO is the part of the game engine that enables online play.
Predominantly this means the networking layer, servers, etc. You know, all the back end stuff that makes you capable of logging into that game world in the first place.
Which handily, is the general definition of infrastructure. Hence why I'd use it as a term instead of a long form description.
And also why I keep noting this difference and how you keep getting it wrong.
So again, it's physically impossible to have an MMO without the MMO infrastructure. It's rather literally, what makes any game capable of being a 'massively multiplayer online' game.
Where you are getting mixed up is where I have rambled off design elements that can't be built in other kinds of infrastructures. At least not to the same scale or subsequent impact.
You can't have a multiplayer game if the game isn't multiplayer. I would have thought that point fundamentally was a no-brainer.
Beyond that is what I have mentioned as potentials uniquely supported by the infrastructure. Things past just multiple people standing around that spawns as options 'because' of the infrastructure.
Cycling back to the other part, the one you also refuse to acknowledge.
The issues 'is' are we playing them because they are mmo's. Your staunch refusal to acknowledge what my first post says is your own doing.
Hence again this quote from my first post.
"We play MMOs, but whether or not we play an MMO because it's an MMO is the issue."
And taking this whole part of your post.
"You are trying to be sophisticted about it, but in the end you are still just questioning whether they are MMO's based on your stated infrastructure. But your infrastucture is irrelevant to the question are they MMO's."
This can only be assumed to be true if you completely ignore that I stated, in my first post, this.
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
So I'm forced to repeat myself again. The fact that I had insight enough to know people would misinterpret that comment in the manner you are doing and consequently clarified that it's not what I meant, in my first post.
So you have to entirely ignore that I said those weren't to be taken as literal accusations that they are not MMOs, but figurative points, and are merrily trolling along.
"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 still care. I am looking forward to some mmo's that are coming Archeage and Eqnext, and I am enjoying Marvel Heroes even thought it may not really be an mmo.
Comments
Well when one is going online into a multi-user world just so they can turn around and play with oneself, it's rather pointing to the question of why it needs to be online or multiplayer.
Anyone else want to make a facetious remark?
"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
Cool, you didn't read. Again.
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
And yet again, the sentence preceding and following it helps explain it's meaning.
EDIT: If you really don't get it, just say so. I would be perfectly willing to clarify myself.
"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
Nice dodging of the question there.
Like I said, why can't MMOs have awesome stories / great mechanics like a single player game?
Why limit MMOs just because historically they've been awful at it?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
To give you choice?
Remember an MMO doesn't need interaction, virtual world, or anything else you stated. It just needs to have the capability of having a lot of people online in the game at the same time. Thats it.
A good one will have those things but certainly doesn't need them to be called an MMO.
All those other things you stated are just your wish list of what an MMO should have.
So you are stating they are not playing MMO's (as defined by you) and are playing them wrong, or for the wrong reasons (as defined by you).
This is just another way of saying that the games are not real MMO's and people are playing them wrong. Just another rant (soft one albeit) about Real MMO's and Real players.
edit - anytime you get an urge to say this is the way something or someone or whatever should be, you really need to start asking why you feel it should be that way. Usually it is a bias on your end.
I didn't dodge it if you'd go and actually read my post. I'm not going to requote every piece back to you every time you pose a question I already had an answer to.
Especially if the question is based on a false premise.
"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
Send me a pm if you do decide to return to EVE. We need a new sheriff in Providence
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. - Carl Sagan
This is getting funny (and a bit sad) as all you've said in your previous post is 'you aren't playing an MMO because you aren't wanting the good parts from MMOs'.
Which makes no sense since 'good parts from MMOs' are apparently your personal preference.
We come back to the original question 'Who decides what an MMO is? You?'
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
No I'm not if you'd read my post.
I even clarified against the point you try to claim in my first post.
" I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I stated my notion right up front.
"Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one makes no sense."
This is a very different argument. I'm not simply stating 'people don't play MMOs'. I'm stating that the reason people play MMOs has no correlation to the potential qualities of the MMO as a platform for gaming.
That how we play them shows very little distinction from how we play offline or small scale games I use as the reaffirming point that MMOs as a platform have not seen strong application of any of their unique values.
When you and others choose to latch onto a sentence which I stated in the damn post was not to be taken literally, it makes it very hard to have a meaningful or valid conversation.
"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
So now you're just going to lie and claim I said something I didn't? Really?
"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 did read your post and in your post your stating the things that you feel an MMO should have. From your own post you stated multiplayer interactions, virtual worlds, collaborative narratives events and question why a game would bother making an online multiplayer world if they don’t have those things. That part is fair enough but then you went on and said that they are not really playing an MMO. And your explanation for them not really playing an MMO was because it does not have those things.
I say those things are not necessary to be an MMO.
Those potential qualities of an MMO taht you refer to are not the definition of an MMO. If an MMO didn't have them it would still be an MMO. Therefore I say he most definatley was playing an MMO.
I say an MMO does not have to have ANY unique values beyond "Must have the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time." An MMO like that may suck, but it is still an MMO.
This means that any and all other Genre's can be MMO's if they have that point. Thats all that MMO's have going for them. That is both the good and bad point, the fact that it is so broad you can do anything with it, and it is so broad you can make games that have virtually no relation to each other other than Must have the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time.
Someone can, and many do, play an MMO the exact same way as on offline single player gamer, and while it may not make sense to you, if they are in a game that has the capability of havingg lots of people in the same game at the same time it's an MMO, just not the ones you like and/or they are not playing the way you do. It is still every bit an MMO as any of the new or old greats.
Yeah not the argument. You're talking about the game. I'm talking about the infrastructure.
Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO. That's not the problem and it just cycles right back to my point of 'Why is it an MMO?"
The freedom of choice for grouping or interaction is in no way limited by other online infrastructures and in some cases are probably more effective choices as far as filtering and controlling your own player experience both online and off.
My point, to state it again, is that the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform.
EDIT: And you keep hammering on with "Someone can, and many do, play an MMO the exact same way as on offline single player game..." Going so far as to accuse me of not understanding the concept.
And it again has to have been made by ignoring what I wrote, both in my original post and the following ones, including that which you responded to. Otherwise you would have taken where I said this...
((I even clarified against the point you try to claim in my first post.
" I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I stated my notion right up front.
"Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one makes no sense."))
As a hint that perhaps I wasn't simply railing on how people play the genre and instead how we are constructing it.
But by all means, keep making the same misleading argument.
"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
But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not. That infrastructure is just part of your wishlist, not a requirement.
Therefore your question of whether someone actually is playing an MMO is only based on your wishlist, not the requirement.
It started out as a choice, now group content in an mmo is just like pvp became. Something they tag onto a game just to say they have it.
But the question he's asking that none of you really want to answer is, if they made these mmos that you all love to play single player games how would that change how you play it ? Why is it an mmo if making it a single player game would probably improve your time spent doing it.
It's not about doing it wrong. It is what it is. If you're not playing an mmo for the online multiplayer aspect of the game you're playing a bad single player game with other people who in all likelihood actually detract from your enjoyment not add to it.
That is why making mmos so solo player friendly has damaged them so much. If the market for single player or " solo " play is really so big developers should be putting more effort into making games like skyrim instead of the trash they're wasting their money on now. Right now trying to get both types of ppl all under one roof is just making poor/mediocre games for both groups of people.
I have answered it, when I said the person may play them the exact same way.
The group content that become just like pvp, tacked on, is still a choice. IMO more of a choice than it was before because solo play is actually viable now.
For me, if say wow became an offline single player game, the only thing it would take away would be my ability to interact with people, which is a big one. I may still play the exact same. How a person chooses to play does not determine if it is an MMO.
You might be playing it like a bad single player game, but it is still an MMO.
I say people want to play a game as good as skyrim with tons of other people. Devs are just having trouble trying to mesh those two ideas. Whether they interact with those people or not is a different choice alltogether, but just having them there changes the environment, IMO for the better (usually) by adding a layer of randomness/dynamics that an spg doesn't have.
Let me just leave this post pyramid intact so I can illustrate clearly the failing here.
You see that argument you just made? That one where you say "But whether games we are producing are supporting that infrastructure does not change whether they are MMO's or not."
Now, what do you think I meant when I wrote "Yes, any game can be put on the MMO platform and be an MMO."?
Did I say there was a requirement beyond that? No?
Then where is your argument even establishing a precedent to be made?
You also mixed words up again. When talking about the infrastructure it's the underlying element upon which the game is built. Not the game itself.
You keep trying to claim i am rambling about a 'wishlist' when I can be quoted directly as stating "the MMO infrastructure can support a form of gameplay that's a genre of it's own, yet that's not the games we are producing on the platform." meaning that it's not in my belief that the elements I am promoting are part of the MMOs we currently play and neither does it extoll it as my personal paradise.
It's instead me remarking that we are building a game on a platform without real regard to the distinguishing value of the platform, opting to copy and past the design for an entirely different platform into it and making it fit in only a loose sense.
So cycling back on the question you seem to be focusing on.
"So does one play an MMO, or are they playing something else in it's guise?"
You have to ignore how I have explained the notion is built not on the premise that people are not playing MMOs, but that the MMOs we have are essentially other games packed into the MMO platform, rather than a game built to capitalize on the potential myriad values of the MMO platform.
You have to ignore that the remark rests on the notion that there are systems and options of game experiences that can be created on that platform, yet we have not sought to really explore these potential values.
EDIT: To sum up, you have to ignore the very thing you continue to ignore from my first post onward. That I am pointing out the fact that producing a game on a given platform, and not taking advantage of that platforms potential values in favor of replicating the same experience you can get from a different platform, means you are not developing a game for that platform as much as it is simply on that platform.
It's like building a first person shooter in Warcraft 3. Sure it can be done, but that takes no advantage of what the platform can deliver in favor of shoehorning a different game onto it.
"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
The precedent was made by you when you said that your not even playing MMO’s. Yes your tried to backtrack but you backtracked only by putting a wishlist of you’re the requirements, or infrastructure as you say, of what an MMO is.
By saying that, you directly implied that it was a requirement.
You can try and couch it and backtrack all you want, but in the end you still believe they are not playing mmo’s. You said it, not me or anyone else in this thread.
Regarding this statement, “So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise.
They are absolutely playing an MMO. Here once again you show that you are implying that they are not MMO’s, again implying that only the ones that have the infrastructure that you deem correct are MMO’s.
Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do is completely irrelevant to the argument, “Are they MMO’s”
So not once but twice you imply that people are not playing MMO's. Once you you said that he wasn't really playing one and again, when you state So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise. And those are based on your notion that they could have an infrastructure that sets them apart.
That infrastructure is only what makes a good MMO, or a social MMO, a mmo that does not have it is still an MMO. At best that infrastructure only makes a sub-genre of MMO, a suffix.
I used to care very much for MMO's. But over the last few years it's just been disappointment after disappointment. My last hope is TESO, if I don't like that then I'm sure I'll be done with MMO's. I also think that bringing them to consoles is really hurting them too.
Except that's false, as that's the final sentence to my first post, which I have to assume still you have not actually read or you'd realize I started with the notion of MMOs as an infrastructure.
And you again make the mistake of terms. Referring to the 'wishlist' again where I have noted the potential values the infrastructure provides for play is not the infrastructure itself, but rather the unique elements that can be delivered through it.
It is by your dismissal of what I have actually said, that you could come to the conclusion that my words mean the opposite of what I actually wrote.
That fact I am referencing parts of my first post to refute your claims still, is hint enough that I'm not 'backtracking', but rather repeating what I have already said in a vain hope that you might eventually get it.
For example, how many times have I already quoted this part from my first post?
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
Don't be shy, count it up. Those two sentences right there are pretty important, as they pretty clearly stated my inquiry wasn't a literal question of if what they are playing is an MMO or not.
Or for that matter, the sentence you quoted in your own post.
"So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise?"
When that question right there was capping my first post where I stated directly "Taking a genre and completely ignoring it's potential qualities to replicate the design of a different one..." and ",taking the infrastructure of an MMO and developing a game that has no strong reason to be played online,"...
And the fact it was a question posed after I already noted "It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
I even made the (admittedly somewhat cryptic) remark "We play MMOs, but whether or not we play an MMO because it's an MMO is the issue."
Does that sentence not sound like "Whether or not current MMO’s are taking advantage of things they can do..."?
That was all from my first post. No backtracking needed, just a bunch of quotes from what should have been read in the first place.
My first post alone just rebuked the claims you try to make here.
"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
No matter how many times you try and state you didn't say it, you still implied that they are not MMO's twice.
And your ONLY refence to your claim that they are not MMO's is that they are not living up to the potential that you feel they have, or that they are not using the potential infrastructure you feel they have.
Once again I'm stating your infrastructure is irrelevant to what makes an MMO therefore any statement you have have whether something is a real mmo or not, or whether someone is playing an mmo or not based on that list is irrelevent.
The issues is not are we playing them because they are mmo's. The issue is you are questioning whether they are even MMO's
"So does one play and MMO or are they playing something else in it’s guise?" This is questioning whether they are MMO's and your only reference for why they might not be an MMO is your stated infrastructure.
You stated he wasn't playing an MMO. And your only reference for that is your stated infrastructure.
You are trying to be sophisticted about it, but in the end you are still just questioning whether they are MMO's based on your stated infrastructure. But your infrastucture is irrelevant to the question are they MMO's.
edit - I don't think most people even care if they are playing MMO's or not, they just care if they are playing a fun game and if they can play them with a little or a lot of the other people
No, you're comparison is completely wrong and inappropriate. Airbags are a safety measure and you are not intended to crash it but you might unintentionally do. This is not comparable in any way.
Last time I checked a lot of MMOs penalise you if you level up in a group. I have tried levelling up with friends and it's much slower, quests take twice as long if they are the collect x and if they are the kill variety you don't get enough xp. From what I have seen traditional MMO questing encourages solo levelling.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Venge, you just quoted a post you responded to, which rebukes the response you wrote. You're getting more dismissive.
And once again you fail to understand that infrastructure is not the game, it's the infrastructure. It's rather literally the only thing that makes an MMO an MMO.
To perhaps make this easier on you since you obviously don't get it, the 'infrastructure' of an MMO is the part of the game engine that enables online play.
Predominantly this means the networking layer, servers, etc. You know, all the back end stuff that makes you capable of logging into that game world in the first place.
Which handily, is the general definition of infrastructure. Hence why I'd use it as a term instead of a long form description.
And also why I keep noting this difference and how you keep getting it wrong.
So again, it's physically impossible to have an MMO without the MMO infrastructure. It's rather literally, what makes any game capable of being a 'massively multiplayer online' game.
Where you are getting mixed up is where I have rambled off design elements that can't be built in other kinds of infrastructures. At least not to the same scale or subsequent impact.
You can't have a multiplayer game if the game isn't multiplayer. I would have thought that point fundamentally was a no-brainer.
Beyond that is what I have mentioned as potentials uniquely supported by the infrastructure. Things past just multiple people standing around that spawns as options 'because' of the infrastructure.
Cycling back to the other part, the one you also refuse to acknowledge.
The issues 'is' are we playing them because they are mmo's. Your staunch refusal to acknowledge what my first post says is your own doing.
Hence again this quote from my first post.
"We play MMOs, but whether or not we play an MMO because it's an MMO is the issue."
And taking this whole part of your post.
"You are trying to be sophisticted about it, but in the end you are still just questioning whether they are MMO's based on your stated infrastructure. But your infrastucture is irrelevant to the question are they MMO's."
This can only be assumed to be true if you completely ignore that I stated, in my first post, this.
"I realize that last sentence is going to b very confusing, as most can point at a title and go 'yes I am'. It's not a literal point as much as it's a figurative one."
So I'm forced to repeat myself again. The fact that I had insight enough to know people would misinterpret that comment in the manner you are doing and consequently clarified that it's not what I meant, in my first post.
So you have to entirely ignore that I said those weren't to be taken as literal accusations that they are not MMOs, but figurative points, and are merrily trolling along.
"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