Originally posted by nilden Originally posted by lizardbones
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on. The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG. What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets. It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is.
MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games.
In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If so, will Marvel Heroes, TSW, TOR, NWO counted as MMORPGs? If so, why is solo content so prevalent?
I would say devs are moving away from that "core aspect" to cater to solo players. Unless, of course you give the genre a new name to reflect this change.
Depends on someones personal warped definition. I think you know exactly why single player content is so prevalent. You have explained it many times how you have fun playing the games. As far as a new name goes wtf do you think Single Player MMORPGs refers to? They do have a new name.
Massively Multiplayer is a core aspect of MMORPGs. It doesn't matter if you ignore it, are not sure how to interpret part of it, or can't accept it. It's fact. If you take the "Massively Multiplayer" out of MMORPG you remove a core aspect.
I really don't see how anyone could argue with that but by all means feel free to astound and amaze me.
I don't see the industry actually using the term "single player MMORPG" .. but if they do, i have no problem with it.
Oh, you can define the "core aspect" as anything. In this case, do you agree that devs are moving AWAY from the core aspect since newer MMOs are very solo friendly?
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on.
The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG.
What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
Yes, I agree they are opposite.
But it makes perfect financial sense, and game design sense when it creates fun games for the audience devs are after.
Heck, just take a online ARPG. D3 can be played solo ... you can enjoy it without talking to a soul, ever. But it is also a MP game with many playing it as such. Does it make sense to put both SP and MP (which you will agree is opposite) into the same game?
Of course it does. In fact, it is the norm for SP games ... and so there is nothing to prevent it to be the norm for MMORPGs too. In fact, it has already happened whether you like it or not.
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on. The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG. What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is.
MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games.
In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
MMO is just a convenient label. Don't tell me that you think instances are "massive". And most MMO gameplay in many games (including wow, the most popular one) happens mostly inside instances.
I don't think the word "massive" means much when the only thing massive in a game is the city lobby.
From now on I think I'm going to refer to LoL as simply an RTS. It's close enough, and who cares about classification and labels anyway right?
Besides, it's better if we muck up all the games and what genre they fall into, that way it's more difficult to find any particular type of game one might be looking for. It would be fun like Christmas morning in that you never know what you're going to get. I'm so excited about this that I'm actually going to go on steam right now and close my eyes and pick whatever game my cursor lands on after 10 seconds of running it around the screen while screaming "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on. The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG. What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets.
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is.
MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games.
In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
Yes you could. Being an MMO only requires it to have the capability of having a lot of people online in the same game/lobby/screen... at the same time. Whether there is actually anything to do, whether you can group or not are just criteria for a good mmo.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
MMO is just a convenient label. Don't tell me that you think instances are "massive". And most MMO gameplay in many games (including wow, the most popular one) happens mostly inside instances.
I don't think the word "massive" means much when the only thing massive in a game is the city lobby.
That's kinda my entire issue. I mean you can blissfully ignore the entire "massively multiplayer" part of a MMO because it has so little meaning. It's not taking advantage of one of the strongest aspects that make the genre what it is.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
If you haven't Noticed yet Nilden, they're going to keep arguing about how one defines an MMO or remark on how X is an MMO because it's big.
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
It's apparently a pretty hard notion to wrap one's head around, because people keep interpreting it to mean something entirely different.
At no point does 'supporting an MMO' preclude any specific kind of game, be it RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
Single player game's aren't RPGs. There are RPGs that are single player games though. People need to divorce the structure upon which the game is built from the elements that makes up a game in order to understand that what's being commented on is the traits defined not by what gameplay elements you chose to make, but the structure within which you chose to make it.
Trying to define what the term MMO means is of little bearing on the matter as it's not the definition, but the literal structure that's in question.
Trying to define the term MMORPG is doubly meaningless, as that's just semantic prodding.
The issue being addressed, of why make it an MMO if the game functionally does not take advantage of anything on the MMO structure, pretty much is remaining elusive to them. I mean just read the last few posts made.
"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 nilden Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by nildenOriginally posted by lizardbones
As Loktfeit said, when "massively multiplayer" is actually defined, then yes. Right now there's not a whole lot to go on. The bare minimum MMORPG would be a flat, featureless, colorless landscape, geometric shapes for player avatars, and a chat window. Eve has shown that you don't really need the landscape. Just a persistent, shared representation of three dimensional space will suffice. While this is definitive, it's not really very clear or useful outside of the specific conversations about D3, LoL or exploring the differences between a game being an MMO and being an MMORPG. What some people really want to do is to create a definition where e.g. SWToR is not a 'true' MMORPG. Such a definition does not a exist. The amount or type of group content is not part of the definition of MMORPGs, outside of some peoples' minds. The amount or type of PvP is also not part of the definition of MMORPGs. Neither is the quality of the game, number or lack of classes, etc. "Many" people and a shared, persistent world (three dimensional, virtual space) is as close as the definition gets. It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?Not to me. You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is. MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games. In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in. Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
A game composed of single player activities could be called an MMORPG, or an MMO. The requirements for an MMORPG to exist are minimal. A shared, persistent "world", lots of people logged into that world and some form of RPG progression in the form of game play. The type of content, whether single player or multiplayer, whether PvE or PvP doesn't define a game as an MMORPG or not.
So, take an empty, three dimensional space where players log into avatars that are just pyramids. Also in this space are other geometric shapes that are various sizes of spheres. Players can shoot the spheres with cubes, reducing the size of the spheres until they are small enough to be absorbed by the avatars, increasing the avatar's level. When a player shoots a sphere, it's 'tapped' and belongs to them. Other players cannot shoot that sphere, and they cannot absorb the small spheres that result from shooting the large sphere. As the avatar's level increases, the avatar grows larger, and it becomes easier to shoot the larger spheres. That's about as minimal an MMORPG I can come up with. The game play is a single player activity, and it's the only activity. The game is an MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
MMO is just a convenient label. Don't tell me that you think instances are "massive". And most MMO gameplay in many games (including wow, the most popular one) happens mostly inside instances.
I don't think the word "massive" means much when the only thing massive in a game is the city lobby.
That's kinda my entire issue. I mean you can blissfully ignore the entire "massively multiplayer" part of a MMO because it has so little meaning. It's not taking advantage of one of the strongest aspects that make the genre what it is.
One man's issue and another's delight.
Yes, "massively multiplayer" has very little meaning most MMOs ... i agree. But "strongest aspects"? If it is the strongest aspect, would so many ignore it?
I would say it is the weakest aspect, and "unfortunately", it was one of the founding aspect of the genre, so people can only slowly back away from it ... or make a MOBA and call it something else.
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
nah .. we get that. We just don't agree it is a bad thing.
A fundamental characteristic .. sure for early old MMOs. Fundamental characteristics can change, just like every thing else man made.
Why do you think it is not being supported by the game elements? May be because it is not conducive to fun (to many ... since fun is subjective).
So, take an empty, three dimensional space where players log into avatars that are just pyramids. Also in this space are other geometric shapes that are various sizes of spheres. Players can shoot the spheres with cubes, reducing the size of the spheres until they are small enough to be absorbed by the avatars, increasing the avatar's level. When a player shoots a sphere, it's 'tapped' and belongs to them. Other players cannot shoot that sphere, and they cannot absorb the small spheres that result from shooting the large sphere. As the avatar's level increases, the avatar grows larger, and it becomes easier to shoot the larger spheres. That's about as minimal an MMORPG I can come up with. The game play is a single player activity, and it's the only activity. The game is an MMORPG.
Interestingly, you've inadvertently created a PvP game.
"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 really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
nah .. we get that. We just don't agree it is a bad thing.
A fundamental characteristic .. sure for early old MMOs. Fundamental characteristics can change, just like every thing else man made.
Why do you think it is not being supported by the game elements? May be because it is not conducive to fun (to many ... since fun is subjective).
No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure.
A fundamental characteristic can't change. It's fundamental.
What's being mentioned is the very state of being an MMO. Of being a game that has been built on a platform enabling an indefinite (but assumedly large) number of people to potentially interact.
The problem is that it renders 'MMO' meaningless.
If the game functionally has no value to it that can't be built using a different underlying mechanic, then developing that game as an MMO has contributed absolutely nothing consequential to it.
Meaning, if you can take the game and move it's playerbase to a server list and a small chat room, then it's probably not utilizing much of the properties that the networking layer and servers can provide.
Meaning if you can pull the plug entirely on your game, or force connection only over lan and ship the server hosting client-side, and not see a major impact in how your gameplay feels and progresses, it's probably not utilizing much of the properties that the networking layer and servers can provide.
I've used the example before even of hosting the main social hub for games via a website, including an auction house system, and then being able to launch into a grouped instance from there. Functionally that whole system could be built on the backbone of an MMO framework, or it could be built on something simpler (like having only a dedicated server to manage chat and the auction house, and the rest of the game is loaded client-side with the occasional verification), and most everyone would simply never know.
Why I think the MMO framework is not being taken advantage of, and we're instead building the same games that we'd build in other frameworks, is particularly the notion that most just don't know how. It's an alien enough concept, the potential options that are available because of the hardware and engine, that most people don't know what kind of game elements they can introduce to capitalize on such an environment.
"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
From now on I think I'm going to refer to LoL as simply an RTS. It's close enough, and who cares about classification and labels anyway right?
You can .. but is it common usage?
LoL and even D3 are listed under MMORPG in many MMORPG sites, and industry classified LoL as such.
When you get all the industry press to refer to LoL as a RTS, i would be more than happy to join you.
It is just a convenient label. It is convenient to refer to LoL as a MMO. Why? Everyone in the press & industry is doing so.
When I played Combat Arms for the first time back in 2008, I thought: how cool, I can design my character (very limited) and I can progress my character (limited as well). Two features from MMOs that fit quite nicely in an FPS.
Did this make it an MMO? Nope. It's still an FPS (with a couple of MMO features). Same deal with WoT (TPS in this case).
Everyone else is doing it (press and marketing)? No, I learned as young child to never make the mistake of blindly falling for that one.
These multiplayer/co-op/ARPG/MOBA/FPS/TPS games etc. are all attempting (with successs) to cash in on MMO money. What's strange is watching people who frequent a site like this getting thrown off by something so obvious. Really, we (if anyone) should know better.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I still care about them. They just don't care about me anymore.
So lopsided. You really would care about products produced by uncaring developers?
Personally i just treat them as replace-able products.
It's the expectation of perpetual entertainment for only fifty cents a day that seems to be crumbling. But perhaps it was never all too realistic in the first place.
I think the reason that it's crumbling is "sadly" the developers.
It seems that developers would wait a bit too long to get content out the door. It's hard for players to justify paying money when they have exhausted what there is and they see no reason to log in anymore.
I don't think the sub fee is anything but "good" but only as long as there are concrete reasons to log in.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
nah .. we get that. We just don't agree it is a bad thing.
A fundamental characteristic .. sure for early old MMOs. Fundamental characteristics can change, just like every thing else man made.
Why do you think it is not being supported by the game elements? May be because it is not conducive to fun (to many ... since fun is subjective).
No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure.
A fundamental characteristic can't change. It's fundamental.
Well, it just did. The importance of that characteristics is now less important. Solo content is available in many MMOs.
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
nah .. we get that. We just don't agree it is a bad thing.
A fundamental characteristic .. sure for early old MMOs. Fundamental characteristics can change, just like every thing else man made.
Why do you think it is not being supported by the game elements? May be because it is not conducive to fun (to many ... since fun is subjective).
No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure.
A fundamental characteristic can't change. It's fundamental.
Well, it just did. The importance of that characteristics is now less important. Solo content is available in many MMOs.
So by your logic, either
a) it is no longer fundamental, or
b) it is malleable?
Tell me, which case is it?
No, it didn't.
Seriously, do you not get what goes into a game's engine and hardware to make it an MMO? Aspects of it changes, but fundamentally you still have networking layers, servers, and other systems that all have to remain present.
By MY logic, neither answer is right, because the assumption you keep making is still wrong.
Whether or not one considers a fundamental characteristic of a game they are playing to be important has zero bearing on if that characteristic is there or not.
It's as I've said multuiple times, what content you put in the game is not the same thing as what the game is built upon. You still haven't grasped this fact.
You even quoted it.
"No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure."
Do you think I put 'engine and structure' or any other part of that sentence in there so it could mean nothing?
"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 blame the negative mmorpg community for all the bad mmo's that are being released. All that negative energy you nerds keep sending out into the universe just keeps manifesting itself as mediocre mmorpg's. You get what you think about.
I think the reason that it's crumbling is "sadly" the developers.
Nah .. it is the players who would not "support" sub-only games and prefer free ones.
"Sad" is just a matter of perspective.
The reason that some players don't want to support sub only games is that it's not of value to them.
Why isn't it of value? because paying what amounts to a small amount of money each month isn't giving them satisfactory game play experiences.
These games tend to boom at the start so obviously there is great interest. But as people burn through content there isn't enough to keep them.
It's very hard to support a subscription when you have nothing to do. I know that I am pro sub. completely pro sub. But what happens is that there isn't enough in the game that is interesting as end game raiding seems like a nightmare of tedum because of the repetition. So I end my sub. No reason to continue.
Yet, with an open world game like morrowind or skyrim I am still playing them to this day with minimal added content. I would pay a monthly sub for a similar online game that would update the content on a reasonably regular rate. I bet dollars to donuts that a good, compelling game world would do the same for others.
People will always pay for something that is good or of value to them.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think the reason that it's crumbling is "sadly" the developers.
Nah .. it is the players who would not "support" sub-only games and prefer free ones.
"Sad" is just a matter of perspective.
The reason that some players don't want to support sub only games is that it's not of value to them.
Why isn't it of value? because paying what amounts to a small amount of money each month isn't giving them satisfactory game play experiences.
These games tend to boom at the start so obviously there is great interest. But as people burn through content there isn't enough to keep them.
It's very hard to support a subscription when you have nothing to do. I know that I am pro sub. completely pro sub. But what happens is that there isn't enough in the game that is interesting as end game raiding seems like a nightmare of tedum because of the repetition. So I end my sub. No reason to continue.
Yet, with an open world game like morrowind or skyrim I am still playing them to this day with minimal added content. I would pay a monthly sub for a similar online game that would update the content on a reasonably regular rate. I bet dollars to donuts that a good, compelling game world would do the same for others.
People will always pay for something that is good or of value to them.
Guild Wars 2: new content every two weeks... and the action combat is quite similar to Skyrim too.
Comments
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise?
Not to me.
You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is.
MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games.
In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't see the industry actually using the term "single player MMORPG" .. but if they do, i have no problem with it.
Oh, you can define the "core aspect" as anything. In this case, do you agree that devs are moving AWAY from the core aspect since newer MMOs are very solo friendly?
Yes, I agree they are opposite.
But it makes perfect financial sense, and game design sense when it creates fun games for the audience devs are after.
Heck, just take a online ARPG. D3 can be played solo ... you can enjoy it without talking to a soul, ever. But it is also a MP game with many playing it as such. Does it make sense to put both SP and MP (which you will agree is opposite) into the same game?
Of course it does. In fact, it is the norm for SP games ... and so there is nothing to prevent it to be the norm for MMORPGs too. In fact, it has already happened whether you like it or not.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/MMO is just a convenient label. Don't tell me that you think instances are "massive". And most MMO gameplay in many games (including wow, the most popular one) happens mostly inside instances.
I don't think the word "massive" means much when the only thing massive in a game is the city lobby.
From now on I think I'm going to refer to LoL as simply an RTS. It's close enough, and who cares about classification and labels anyway right?
Besides, it's better if we muck up all the games and what genre they fall into, that way it's more difficult to find any particular type of game one might be looking for. It would be fun like Christmas morning in that you never know what you're going to get. I'm so excited about this that I'm actually going to go on steam right now and close my eyes and pick whatever game my cursor lands on after 10 seconds of running it around the screen while screaming "weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Yes you could. Being an MMO only requires it to have the capability of having a lot of people online in the same game/lobby/screen... at the same time. Whether there is actually anything to do, whether you can group or not are just criteria for a good mmo.
You can .. but is it common usage?
LoL and even D3 are listed under MMORPG in many MMORPG sites, and industry classified LoL as such.
When you get all the industry press to refer to LoL as a RTS, i would be more than happy to join you.
It is just a convenient label. It is convenient to refer to LoL as a MMO. Why? Everyone in the press & industry is doing so.
That's kinda my entire issue. I mean you can blissfully ignore the entire "massively multiplayer" part of a MMO because it has so little meaning. It's not taking advantage of one of the strongest aspects that make the genre what it is.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/If you haven't Noticed yet Nilden, they're going to keep arguing about how one defines an MMO or remark on how X is an MMO because it's big.
I don't really think they're interested in realizing you're saying 'MMOs fundamental characteristic, that of it being an MMO, isn't being supported by the game elements'.
It's apparently a pretty hard notion to wrap one's head around, because people keep interpreting it to mean something entirely different.
At no point does 'supporting an MMO' preclude any specific kind of game, be it RPG, FPS, RTS, etc.
Single player game's aren't RPGs. There are RPGs that are single player games though. People need to divorce the structure upon which the game is built from the elements that makes up a game in order to understand that what's being commented on is the traits defined not by what gameplay elements you chose to make, but the structure within which you chose to make it.
Trying to define what the term MMO means is of little bearing on the matter as it's not the definition, but the literal structure that's in question.
Trying to define the term MMORPG is doubly meaningless, as that's just semantic prodding.
The issue being addressed, of why make it an MMO if the game functionally does not take advantage of anything on the MMO structure, pretty much is remaining elusive to them. I mean just read the last few posts made.
"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
It's not about defining massive. It's about "massively multiplayer" being a defining core aspect of MMORPGs. Could we agree that Single Player is the exact opposite of Massively Multiplayer? If so and your on board with that then does it make sense to focus your game on the exact opposite of it's most basic fundamental premise? Not to me.
You've applied your own personal definition to what an MMORPG "is" in an attempt to disqualify games you do not like. "Opposite of a single player game" isn't part of the definition, such as it is. MMORPGs are certainly different from single player games, but if they were the opposite of single player games, MMORPGs couldn't have many RPG aspects that they obviously contain such as skill or level progression. If MMORPGs were the opposite of single player games, then they couldn't have any single player activities. Even UO had some single player activities. If anything, MMORPGs are extensions of single player games, not the opposite of single player games. In my minimalist definition up there, some form of progression or leveling is necessary too. I suppose in a minimalist MMORPG, the avatar level would be determined by how long the players stayed logged in.
Exactly what games am I disqualifying that I don't like? Bringing up skills, levels or progression has no bearing on single player or massively multiplayer. If an MMO only had single player activities could you still call it an MMO?
A game composed of single player activities could be called an MMORPG, or an MMO. The requirements for an MMORPG to exist are minimal. A shared, persistent "world", lots of people logged into that world and some form of RPG progression in the form of game play. The type of content, whether single player or multiplayer, whether PvE or PvP doesn't define a game as an MMORPG or not.
So, take an empty, three dimensional space where players log into avatars that are just pyramids. Also in this space are other geometric shapes that are various sizes of spheres. Players can shoot the spheres with cubes, reducing the size of the spheres until they are small enough to be absorbed by the avatars, increasing the avatar's level. When a player shoots a sphere, it's 'tapped' and belongs to them. Other players cannot shoot that sphere, and they cannot absorb the small spheres that result from shooting the large sphere. As the avatar's level increases, the avatar grows larger, and it becomes easier to shoot the larger spheres. That's about as minimal an MMORPG I can come up with. The game play is a single player activity, and it's the only activity. The game is an MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
One man's issue and another's delight.
Yes, "massively multiplayer" has very little meaning most MMOs ... i agree. But "strongest aspects"? If it is the strongest aspect, would so many ignore it?
I would say it is the weakest aspect, and "unfortunately", it was one of the founding aspect of the genre, so people can only slowly back away from it ... or make a MOBA and call it something else.
nah .. we get that. We just don't agree it is a bad thing.
A fundamental characteristic .. sure for early old MMOs. Fundamental characteristics can change, just like every thing else man made.
Why do you think it is not being supported by the game elements? May be because it is not conducive to fun (to many ... since fun is subjective).
Interestingly, you've inadvertently created a PvP game.
"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
are you surprised?
People here enjoy forum pvp a great deal.
No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure.
A fundamental characteristic can't change. It's fundamental.
What's being mentioned is the very state of being an MMO. Of being a game that has been built on a platform enabling an indefinite (but assumedly large) number of people to potentially interact.
The problem is that it renders 'MMO' meaningless.
If the game functionally has no value to it that can't be built using a different underlying mechanic, then developing that game as an MMO has contributed absolutely nothing consequential to it.
Meaning, if you can take the game and move it's playerbase to a server list and a small chat room, then it's probably not utilizing much of the properties that the networking layer and servers can provide.
Meaning if you can pull the plug entirely on your game, or force connection only over lan and ship the server hosting client-side, and not see a major impact in how your gameplay feels and progresses, it's probably not utilizing much of the properties that the networking layer and servers can provide.
I've used the example before even of hosting the main social hub for games via a website, including an auction house system, and then being able to launch into a grouped instance from there. Functionally that whole system could be built on the backbone of an MMO framework, or it could be built on something simpler (like having only a dedicated server to manage chat and the auction house, and the rest of the game is loaded client-side with the occasional verification), and most everyone would simply never know.
Why I think the MMO framework is not being taken advantage of, and we're instead building the same games that we'd build in other frameworks, is particularly the notion that most just don't know how. It's an alien enough concept, the potential options that are available because of the hardware and engine, that most people don't know what kind of game elements they can introduce to capitalize on such an environment.
"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
When I played Combat Arms for the first time back in 2008, I thought: how cool, I can design my character (very limited) and I can progress my character (limited as well). Two features from MMOs that fit quite nicely in an FPS.
Did this make it an MMO? Nope. It's still an FPS (with a couple of MMO features). Same deal with WoT (TPS in this case).
Everyone else is doing it (press and marketing)? No, I learned as young child to never make the mistake of blindly falling for that one.
These multiplayer/co-op/ARPG/MOBA/FPS/TPS games etc. are all attempting (with successs) to cash in on MMO money. What's strange is watching people who frequent a site like this getting thrown off by something so obvious. Really, we (if anyone) should know better.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think the reason that it's crumbling is "sadly" the developers.
It seems that developers would wait a bit too long to get content out the door. It's hard for players to justify paying money when they have exhausted what there is and they see no reason to log in anymore.
I don't think the sub fee is anything but "good" but only as long as there are concrete reasons to log in.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well, it just did. The importance of that characteristics is now less important. Solo content is available in many MMOs.
So by your logic, either
a) it is no longer fundamental, or
b) it is malleable?
Tell me, which case is it?
Nah .. it is the players who would not "support" sub-only games and prefer free ones.
"Sad" is just a matter of perspective.
No, it didn't.
Seriously, do you not get what goes into a game's engine and hardware to make it an MMO? Aspects of it changes, but fundamentally you still have networking layers, servers, and other systems that all have to remain present.
By MY logic, neither answer is right, because the assumption you keep making is still wrong.
Whether or not one considers a fundamental characteristic of a game they are playing to be important has zero bearing on if that characteristic is there or not.
It's as I've said multuiple times, what content you put in the game is not the same thing as what the game is built upon. You still haven't grasped this fact.
You even quoted it.
"No you didn't get it, because you're still talking about that characteristic as if it's a malleable trait of the game and not the parts of the engine and structure."
Do you think I put 'engine and structure' or any other part of that sentence in there so it could mean nothing?
"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 reason that some players don't want to support sub only games is that it's not of value to them.
Why isn't it of value? because paying what amounts to a small amount of money each month isn't giving them satisfactory game play experiences.
These games tend to boom at the start so obviously there is great interest. But as people burn through content there isn't enough to keep them.
It's very hard to support a subscription when you have nothing to do. I know that I am pro sub. completely pro sub. But what happens is that there isn't enough in the game that is interesting as end game raiding seems like a nightmare of tedum because of the repetition. So I end my sub. No reason to continue.
Yet, with an open world game like morrowind or skyrim I am still playing them to this day with minimal added content. I would pay a monthly sub for a similar online game that would update the content on a reasonably regular rate. I bet dollars to donuts that a good, compelling game world would do the same for others.
People will always pay for something that is good or of value to them.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Guild Wars 2: new content every two weeks... and the action combat is quite similar to Skyrim too.
My computer is better than yours.