Wow is not turn based. Turn based is where a player is allowed s period of time to analyze and execute a play and the other player is not allowed to attack. The players take turns attacking.
Most mmo games are real time not turn based.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Why not have both? Why cant an MMORPG (which mostly have shit almost turn based combat) have FPS combat in this age of better internet in a persistent world? Add to that a system like UO where you lvl your skills instead of your character (as long as the power gap is small between a noob and a fully maxed character) so it doesnt break the combat and you end up with a MMOFPS.
Just imagine Chivalry online or Mount and Blade in a persistent world with crafting and pve mobs/resources, house & city building, now that would be a hell of a game.
The only MMO I can think of with remotely anything close to turn based combat is FFXI, and it wasn't really turn based so much as slowed down for console users.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
MMOs involve persistent worlds. They involve world player caps that extend into the thousands (as opposed to FPS' several hundred player caps) and player economies that have varying degrees of complexity
Not all of them. Marvel Heroes has no persistent world. Worlds of Tank has no persistent world, and no player economies.
Persistent world is not that central an idea in MMOs anyway. Even WOW, while it has a persistent world, there are tons of non-persistent gameplay modes (like cross realm instanced dungeons).
For once, I have to agree with Naiusseldon.
The reason so many people say "if you don't like levelling, play a FPS" is because, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that separates an MMO these days from a FPS is the levelling. We have to keep in mind that the persistant world, all the economy, all the esoteric elements have been more or less taken out over the last decade. To the new players coming up, there really is no concept that an MMO is anything other than levels, quests, levels and quests.
Will those other MMO-sy elements the OP talks about come back? Who knows.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by Crusades Thanks for the advice, but I already knew that, and that's why I play fps. No leveling needed, even match, no gear grind, just skill vs skill. If you don't like skill vs skill it's probably because you suck and need to buy your power, either by directly paying to win or by sinking 8 hours a day into your game of choice so you have better gear than everyone else. I know I know I have the same option to pay and win or time sink gear grind too, so it is even, but no thanks got to much other stuff I enjoy doing too. Bottom line leveling sucks for me and is good for people that don't have anything else to do but pown lowbies and brag about it. The same people that love leveling, those people are level capped in 2 days.
Quoted for truth. At the end of the day, PVP in any MMO is a particularly unfunny joke. You really want bragging rights over beating other players in a game, better go to a FPS or even a MOBA.
Leveling is a throwback to tabletop. Your character is supposed to be an alternate persona, not a collection of numbers and "build". Back in the day, as you leveled, your character's personality and backstory grew, and the early MMOs came from that tradition and were influenced by their single player game roots (the Ultima series, the Gold Box series.)
No MMO currently on the market actively supports the RP part of MMORPG. None. Full Stop. They might as well take out the RP, take out levels, call it MMOG, and be done with it.
Originally posted by Crusades Thanks for the advice, but I already knew that, and that's why I play fps. No leveling needed, even match, no gear grind, just skill vs skill. If you don't like skill vs skill it's probably because you suck and need to buy your power, either by directly paying to win or by sinking 8 hours a day into your game of choice so you have better gear than everyone else. I know I know I have the same option to pay and win or time sink gear grind too, so it is even, but no thanks got to much other stuff I enjoy doing too. Bottom line leveling sucks for me and is good for people that don't have anything else to do but pown lowbies and brag about it. The same people that love leveling, those people are level capped in 2 days.
You should probably read the post before you respond to the thread title alone...
MMOs involve persistent worlds. They involve world player caps that extend into the thousands (as opposed to FPS' several hundred player caps) and player economies that have varying degrees of complexity (from WoW's simplistic AH system to EVE's "need an accounting degree to figure out wtf I'm doing" market scheme). They involve player interaction beyond just shooting them in the face, and these days involve world events that hundreds of players from around the game world can take place in. They have cities, towns, hamlets and little camps all around to explore and see.
And yet, these people don't see that. All they see are levels. Take those away, and as far as they are concerned, it would just another FPS.
MMO = "Massively Multiplayer Online".
And that's it.
It just sets technical constraints but doesn't say anything about the actual gameplay. So in a way you are correct but also reading too much into it.
- "Massively multiplayer" = assuming more (non-concurrent) players than a "simple multiplayer" titles
MMOs involve persistent worlds. They involve world player caps that extend into the thousands (as opposed to FPS' several hundred player caps) and player economies that have varying degrees of complexity
Not all of them. Marvel Heroes has no persistent world. Worlds of Tank has no persistent world, and no player economies.
Persistent world is not that central an idea in MMOs anyway. Even WOW, while it has a persistent world, there are tons of non-persistent gameplay modes (like cross realm instanced dungeons).
For once, I have to agree with Naiusseldon.
The reason so many people say "if you don't like levelling, play a FPS" is because, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that separates an MMO these days from a FPS is the levelling. We have to keep in mind that the persistant world, all the economy, all the esoteric elements have been more or less taken out over the last decade. To the new players coming up, there really is no concept that an MMO is anything other than levels, quests, levels and quests.
Will those other MMO-sy elements the OP talks about come back? Who knows.
It highly depends on if there is a large enough market for those elements. It is pretty obvious to me that AAA development is going to focus on the mass market, and clearly those elements are not popular in the mass market.
So that leaves the niche/indie market. But even then, you have to make a certain amount of money to be successful. You have to ask how many hard core gamers are left who are willing to pay $15 a month for a new indie MMO in the sea of F2P, and AAA games in other genre?
MMOs involve persistent worlds. They involve world player caps that extend into the thousands (as opposed to FPS' several hundred player caps) and player economies that have varying degrees of complexity
Not all of them. Marvel Heroes has no persistent world. Worlds of Tank has no persistent world, and no player economies.
Persistent world is not that central an idea in MMOs anyway. Even WOW, while it has a persistent world, there are tons of non-persistent gameplay modes (like cross realm instanced dungeons).
For once, I have to agree with Naiusseldon.
The reason so many people say "if you don't like levelling, play a FPS" is because, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that separates an MMO these days from a FPS is the levelling. We have to keep in mind that the persistant world, all the economy, all the esoteric elements have been more or less taken out over the last decade. To the new players coming up, there really is no concept that an MMO is anything other than levels, quests, levels and quests.
Will those other MMO-sy elements the OP talks about come back? Who knows.
It highly depends on if there is a large enough market for those elements. It is pretty obvious to me that AAA development is going to focus on the mass market, and clearly those elements are not popular in the mass market.
So that leaves the niche/indie market. But even then, you have to make a certain amount of money to be successful. You have to ask how many hard core gamers are left who are willing to pay $15 a month for a new indie MMO in the sea of F2P, and AAA games in other genre?
Well, all I know is that Space Engineers, a game still in Alpha, has been in the top 10 purchases in Steam for months now. Minecraft is so popular, it's even getting ported to consoles. And big budget MMOs and MOBAs? For the few that make it big, life is good...but there's a lot of minnows who aren't looking as good.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Well, all I know is that Space Engineers, a game still in Alpha, has been in the top 10 purchases in Steam for months now. Minecraft is so popular, it's even getting ported to consoles. And big budget MMOs and MOBAs? For the few that make it big, life is good...but there's a lot of minnows who aren't looking as good.
minecraft is cheap to make, plus it does not have a single persistent world anyway.
Plus, for every game like minecraft, there are 10 which is about jump in and combat.
MOBAs have no persistent world .. in fact, a perfect example of my point .. people like to jump in (convenient) and pvp. They don't care if there is no world (I suppose they probably wouldn't mind if there is one, but why bother if they don't care).
Even MMO .. many recent ones have no, or de-emphasized the persistent world (marvel heroes, NWO, GW2...).
- "Massively multiplayer" = assuming more (non-concurrent) players than a "simple multiplayer" titles
The newest COD has way more non-concurrent players than Eve.
So CoD is "massively multiplayer", and Eve is "simple multiplayer"?
Depends on your definition of massive.
And just because one is bigger than the other doesn't mean they both cant be massive.
You could look at 2 planets and one could be 3 times the size of the other but relative to you both are massive.
I don't have a definition. I think it is just a convenient label. No more or no less.
I am just asking questions about askdaboss' definition. Do you agree with HIS definition?
I have never seen the word simple used in this context before....so cant really say.
Single player
Single player with Coop
Multiplayer
Massive Multiplayer
i am happy with this and don't need to break it down further. Beyond that will never result with everyone agreeing.
This reminds me of when I look for games on Steam, it seems every game fits in every category. Lets just be done with it and call everything.......game.
Originally posted by Kyleran What it should read is if you don't like progression mechanics, you should not be playing MMORPGs.
Progression is a defining characteristic of the traditional MMORPG. I'm not saying all online games need to have it, but in the traditional model it will always be there, right along with its cousin, the grind.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Measuring a character's progression is a mechanic shared by most games in some form or another. While there are differences in approach, the paradigm remains the same.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Measuring a character's progression is a mechanic shared by most games in some form or another. While there are differences in approach, the paradigm remains the same.
Exactly.
I can level up in Quake/Doom.
I can level up in Super Mario.
Different forms of player progression.
The games you listed added the rpg mechanic to appeal to a wider consumer base and make more money.
They didn't start off as a RPG.
Nowadays games borrow so much from each other you may as well just label them as game.
Just look at Steam, many of the games show up in the same categories.
- "Massively multiplayer" = assuming more (non-concurrent) players than a "simple multiplayer" titles
The newest COD has way more non-concurrent players than Eve.
So CoD is "massively multiplayer", and Eve is "simple multiplayer"?
Depends on your definition of massive.
And just because one is bigger than the other doesn't mean they both cant be massive.
You could look at 2 planets and one could be 3 times the size of the other but relative to you both are massive.
I don't have a definition. I think it is just a convenient label. No more or no less.
I am just asking questions about askdaboss' definition. Do you agree with HIS definition?
I have never seen the word simple used in this context before....so cant really say.
Single player
Single player with Coop
Multiplayer
Massive Multiplayer
i am happy with this and don't need to break it down further. Beyond that will never result with everyone agreeing.
This reminds me of when I look for games on Steam, it seems every game fits in every category. Lets just be done with it and call everything.......game.
The only reason why I used the word "simple" was really in opposition to "massively" - more to mark a difference between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer".
My "non-concurrent" wasn't very clear to be fair... It really meant "not necessarily playing concurrently - at the same time, in the same space - but in the same global instance" (as in players in WoW aren't technically in the same space - town or region, or even connected at the same time, but they can ALL move into the same space at the same time if they want and then crash their server).
The difference between CoD and EvE would be that in one case (EvE) the mass of players evolve (theoretically) in the same instance of the "game world" whereas, in the other case (CoD) they can never share the same game world, but only mini separated instances of it (as I understand it).
Now I don't think the MM part of MMO necessarily means "persistent world" either, as a persistent world shouldn't be a condition for a MMOFPS in my view.
Really I think each individual will draw the line between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer" where they want. I think a good indicator is whether the game is hosted on private servers or public (publisher owned) servers.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Measuring a character's progression is a mechanic shared by most games in some form or another. While there are differences in approach, the paradigm remains the same.
Exactly.
I can level up in Quake/Doom.
I can level up in Super Mario.
Different forms of player progression.
The games you listed added the rpg mechanic to appeal to a wider consumer base and make more money.
They didn't start off as a RPG.
Nowadays games borrow so much from each other you may as well just label them as game.
Just look at Steam, many of the games show up in the same categories.
When I mention I could level up in Doom, an FPS is by searching for the exit button in the map(level) I'm playing through and move onto the next level(or map)
Same with Super Mario. I jump from platform to platform killing random enemies to get to the exit of that level and move onto the next.
It's just a different form of player progression through levels.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Measuring a character's progression is a mechanic shared by most games in some form or another. While there are differences in approach, the paradigm remains the same.
Exactly.
I can level up in Quake/Doom.
I can level up in Super Mario.
Different forms of player progression.
The games you listed added the rpg mechanic to appeal to a wider consumer base and make more money.
They didn't start off as a RPG.
Nowadays games borrow so much from each other you may as well just label them as game.
Just look at Steam, many of the games show up in the same categories.
When I mention I could level up in Doom, an FPS is by searching for the exit button in the map(level) I'm playing through and move onto the next level(or map)
Same with Super Mario. I jump from platform to platform killing random enemies to get to the exit of that level and move onto the next.
It's just a different form of player progression through levels.
FPS and RPG are clearly 2 different types of games. Throw MMO in front and for some reason people cant see the difference anymore.
Don't most FPS games now have a level up system of their own? You have to grind to unlock certain weapons + perks...not exactly the same but's pretty much similar to the overall leveling.
The leveling system is played out and its a artificial goal to keep the hamster wheel rolling. I am personal fan of the SWG skill tree.
The difference to the FPS leveling system and the MMO leveling system is that you can do anything from day one in an FPS (by that I mean play any game mode - weapons are unavailable until you unlock them but weapons give variety not additional 'power') but cannot in an MMO (mostly in an MMO the end game is out of reach until you reach max level).
The OP is confusing levels with progression. An MMO without levels will still give you progression but should also allow you to sample every game mode possible without barriers. In most cases you are unable to do this.
Don't most FPS games now have a level up system of their own? You have to grind to unlock certain weapons + perks...not exactly the same but's pretty much similar to the overall leveling.
The leveling system is played out and its a artificial goal to keep the hamster wheel rolling. I am personal fan of the SWG skill tree.
The difference to the FPS leveling system and the MMO leveling system is that you can do anything from day one in an FPS (by that I mean play any game mode - weapons are unavailable until you unlock them but weapons give variety not additional 'power') but cannot in an MMO (mostly in an MMO the end game is out of reach until you reach max level).
The OP is confusing levels with progression. An MMO without levels will still give you progression but should also allow you to sample every game mode possible without barriers. In most cases you are unable to do this.
See, you are just being pedantic.
Horizontal progression is not progression. Progression implies moving forward, by definition. There is a reason why a lateral pass is not progressing forward on the field, because its lateral, horizontal, sideways.
The fact that the guns provide variety works within an FPS model. It does not work in an RPG model. There is no fun in killing a goblin that has the same amount of HP and difficulty, as killing a Wolf with the same amount of HP and difficulty, or a dragon with the same amount of HP or difficulty.
RPG's are built upon going after more powerful and difficult monsters, and there are only 2 logical ways you can take down a more powerful monster, either A. Become more powerful yourself, whether its through gears or levels(skills, same thing), or B. Bring more people.
Having some stupid scenario where you kill the humongous dragon by spending 30 minutes expertly dancing around and dodging hits while you hit the mob for one ten thousandth of its HP per swing is only fun for a small portion of the gamer playerbase, usually sadists, and in all honesty is the realm of platform single player games, not MMOs.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Don't most FPS games now have a level up system of their own? You have to grind to unlock certain weapons + perks...not exactly the same but's pretty much similar to the overall leveling.
The leveling system is played out and its a artificial goal to keep the hamster wheel rolling. I am personal fan of the SWG skill tree.
The difference to the FPS leveling system and the MMO leveling system is that you can do anything from day one in an FPS (by that I mean play any game mode - weapons are unavailable until you unlock them but weapons give variety not additional 'power') but cannot in an MMO (mostly in an MMO the end game is out of reach until you reach max level).
The OP is confusing levels with progression. An MMO without levels will still give you progression but should also allow you to sample every game mode possible without barriers. In most cases you are unable to do this.
See, you are just being pedantic.
Horizontal progression is not progression. Progression implies moving forward, by definition. There is a reason why a lateral pass is not progressing forward on the field, because its lateral, horizontal, sideways.
The fact that the guns provide variety works within an FPS model. It does not work in an RPG model. There is no fun in killing a goblin that has the same amount of HP and difficulty, as killing a Wolf with the same amount of HP and difficulty, or a dragon with the same amount of HP or difficulty.
RPG's are built upon going after more powerful and difficult monsters, and there are only 2 logical ways you can take down a more powerful monster, either A. Become more powerful yourself, whether its through gears or levels(skills, same thing), or B. Bring more people.
Having some stupid scenario where you kill the humongous dragon by spending 30 minutes expertly dancing around and dodging hits while you hit the mob for one ten thousandth of its HP per swing is only fun for a small portion of the gamer playerbase, usually sadists, and in all honesty is the realm of platform single player games, not MMOs. Take it out of context and you would be correct. Going sideways is not going forward. Going sideways to ultimately go forward
Take it out of context and you are correct. Going sideways is not going forward, no progression. Going sideways so you can go forward (like in your football example) is progressing. They don't make a lateral in football with the intent of not gaining yards. They do it with the intent of moving forward.
This reminds me of when I look for games on Steam, it seems every game fits in every category. Lets just be done with it and call everything.......game.
Why do we ever need detailed category when you can list the modes of the game in a few bullet points.
Borderland - single player campaign + 4 player co-op mode
Diablo 3 - single player campaign + solo random dungeon + 4 player co-op
wow - 5/10/25 man dungeons + instanced pvp
Very simple ... no need to debate if they are MMO or not.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo ultima online one of the first graphical mmos didnt have levels
They should be commended and given a golden globe award ,i find most of the modern day gimmicks used in mmorpg's to be laughable at best.
I truly believe there must be some more intelligent game designers out there,i know there is,problem is they most likely don't have the power and money to give us some great games.
Levels are completely meaningless,they are just some numbers to aid the experience numbers but never really mean a thing.
If you asked someone what level 50 is in Wow and what level 50 is in EQ2 they would be like idk.The response would most likely be something like "Oh Wow is much tougher to get level 50 or EQ2 is much tougher".Or would be off topic saying they already have max level players and alts and just end game raid.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by ElRenmazuo ultima online one of the first graphical mmos didnt have levels
You missed the point COMPLETELY. levels as in character development, did you not develop a character in UO, or did you just log in at max level (character development).
Comments
Most mmo games are real time not turn based.
The only MMO I can think of with remotely anything close to turn based combat is FFXI, and it wasn't really turn based so much as slowed down for console users.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
For once, I have to agree with Naiusseldon.
The reason so many people say "if you don't like levelling, play a FPS" is because, for all intents and purposes, the only thing that separates an MMO these days from a FPS is the levelling. We have to keep in mind that the persistant world, all the economy, all the esoteric elements have been more or less taken out over the last decade. To the new players coming up, there really is no concept that an MMO is anything other than levels, quests, levels and quests.
Will those other MMO-sy elements the OP talks about come back? Who knows.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Quoted for truth. At the end of the day, PVP in any MMO is a particularly unfunny joke. You really want bragging rights over beating other players in a game, better go to a FPS or even a MOBA.
Leveling is a throwback to tabletop. Your character is supposed to be an alternate persona, not a collection of numbers and "build". Back in the day, as you leveled, your character's personality and backstory grew, and the early MMOs came from that tradition and were influenced by their single player game roots (the Ultima series, the Gold Box series.)
No MMO currently on the market actively supports the RP part of MMORPG. None. Full Stop. They might as well take out the RP, take out levels, call it MMOG, and be done with it.
You should probably read the post before you respond to the thread title alone...
MMO = "Massively Multiplayer Online".
And that's it.
It just sets technical constraints but doesn't say anything about the actual gameplay. So in a way you are correct but also reading too much into it.
- "Massively multiplayer" = assuming more (non-concurrent) players than a "simple multiplayer" titles
- "Online" = Requires you to connect to play
It doesn't tell a lot.
It highly depends on if there is a large enough market for those elements. It is pretty obvious to me that AAA development is going to focus on the mass market, and clearly those elements are not popular in the mass market.
So that leaves the niche/indie market. But even then, you have to make a certain amount of money to be successful. You have to ask how many hard core gamers are left who are willing to pay $15 a month for a new indie MMO in the sea of F2P, and AAA games in other genre?
The newest COD has way more non-concurrent players than Eve.
So CoD is "massively multiplayer", and Eve is "simple multiplayer"?
Well, all I know is that Space Engineers, a game still in Alpha, has been in the top 10 purchases in Steam for months now. Minecraft is so popular, it's even getting ported to consoles. And big budget MMOs and MOBAs? For the few that make it big, life is good...but there's a lot of minnows who aren't looking as good.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Depends on your definition of massive.
And just because one is bigger than the other doesn't mean they both cant be massive.
You could look at 2 planets and one could be 3 times the size of the other but relative to you both are massive.
I don't have a definition. I think it is just a convenient label. No more or no less.
I am just asking questions about askdaboss' definition. Do you agree with HIS definition?
minecraft is cheap to make, plus it does not have a single persistent world anyway.
Plus, for every game like minecraft, there are 10 which is about jump in and combat.
MOBAs have no persistent world .. in fact, a perfect example of my point .. people like to jump in (convenient) and pvp. They don't care if there is no world (I suppose they probably wouldn't mind if there is one, but why bother if they don't care).
Even MMO .. many recent ones have no, or de-emphasized the persistent world (marvel heroes, NWO, GW2...).
I have never seen the word simple used in this context before....so cant really say.
Single player
Single player with Coop
Multiplayer
Massive Multiplayer
i am happy with this and don't need to break it down further. Beyond that will never result with everyone agreeing.
This reminds me of when I look for games on Steam, it seems every game fits in every category. Lets just be done with it and call everything.......game.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I can level up in Quake/Doom.
I can level up in Super Mario.
Different forms of player progression.
The games you listed added the rpg mechanic to appeal to a wider consumer base and make more money.
They didn't start off as a RPG.
Nowadays games borrow so much from each other you may as well just label them as game.
Just look at Steam, many of the games show up in the same categories.
The only reason why I used the word "simple" was really in opposition to "massively" - more to mark a difference between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer".
My "non-concurrent" wasn't very clear to be fair... It really meant "not necessarily playing concurrently - at the same time, in the same space - but in the same global instance" (as in players in WoW aren't technically in the same space - town or region, or even connected at the same time, but they can ALL move into the same space at the same time if they want and then crash their server).
The difference between CoD and EvE would be that in one case (EvE) the mass of players evolve (theoretically) in the same instance of the "game world" whereas, in the other case (CoD) they can never share the same game world, but only mini separated instances of it (as I understand it).
Now I don't think the MM part of MMO necessarily means "persistent world" either, as a persistent world shouldn't be a condition for a MMOFPS in my view.
Really I think each individual will draw the line between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer" where they want. I think a good indicator is whether the game is hosted on private servers or public (publisher owned) servers.
When I mention I could level up in Doom, an FPS is by searching for the exit button in the map(level) I'm playing through and move onto the next level(or map)
Same with Super Mario. I jump from platform to platform killing random enemies to get to the exit of that level and move onto the next.
It's just a different form of player progression through levels.
FPS and RPG are clearly 2 different types of games. Throw MMO in front and for some reason people cant see the difference anymore.
The difference to the FPS leveling system and the MMO leveling system is that you can do anything from day one in an FPS (by that I mean play any game mode - weapons are unavailable until you unlock them but weapons give variety not additional 'power') but cannot in an MMO (mostly in an MMO the end game is out of reach until you reach max level).
The OP is confusing levels with progression. An MMO without levels will still give you progression but should also allow you to sample every game mode possible without barriers. In most cases you are unable to do this.
See, you are just being pedantic.
Horizontal progression is not progression. Progression implies moving forward, by definition. There is a reason why a lateral pass is not progressing forward on the field, because its lateral, horizontal, sideways.
The fact that the guns provide variety works within an FPS model. It does not work in an RPG model. There is no fun in killing a goblin that has the same amount of HP and difficulty, as killing a Wolf with the same amount of HP and difficulty, or a dragon with the same amount of HP or difficulty.
RPG's are built upon going after more powerful and difficult monsters, and there are only 2 logical ways you can take down a more powerful monster, either A. Become more powerful yourself, whether its through gears or levels(skills, same thing), or B. Bring more people.
Having some stupid scenario where you kill the humongous dragon by spending 30 minutes expertly dancing around and dodging hits while you hit the mob for one ten thousandth of its HP per swing is only fun for a small portion of the gamer playerbase, usually sadists, and in all honesty is the realm of platform single player games, not MMOs.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Take it out of context and you are correct. Going sideways is not going forward, no progression. Going sideways so you can go forward (like in your football example) is progressing. They don't make a lateral in football with the intent of not gaining yards. They do it with the intent of moving forward.
Why do we ever need detailed category when you can list the modes of the game in a few bullet points.
Borderland - single player campaign + 4 player co-op mode
Diablo 3 - single player campaign + solo random dungeon + 4 player co-op
wow - 5/10/25 man dungeons + instanced pvp
Very simple ... no need to debate if they are MMO or not.
They should be commended and given a golden globe award ,i find most of the modern day gimmicks used in mmorpg's to be laughable at best.
I truly believe there must be some more intelligent game designers out there,i know there is,problem is they most likely don't have the power and money to give us some great games.
Levels are completely meaningless,they are just some numbers to aid the experience numbers but never really mean a thing.
If you asked someone what level 50 is in Wow and what level 50 is in EQ2 they would be like idk.The response would most likely be something like "Oh Wow is much tougher to get level 50 or EQ2 is much tougher".Or would be off topic saying they already have max level players and alts and just end game raid.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You missed the point COMPLETELY. levels as in character development, did you not develop a character in UO, or did you just log in at max level (character development).