Originally posted by Enbysra Originally posted by nariusseldon How I define it? I don't. I just follow common usage. It is not that important to have a strict definition anyway. It is not like I like or dislike a game because of its classification.
And responses such as this are exactly why the MMORPG Industry NEEDS companies to produce real MMORPGs. The true MMORPG playerbase does define MMORPG, and that definition stems from the Tabletop RPG definition, translating with little difference from RPG to MMORPG.
MMORPG is NOT MMOFPS.
MMORPG is NOT MOBA.
MMORPG is NOT just another MMO.
Everquest had a first person mode. So, if you were playing a Ranger while in first person mode would Everquest be considered a "true" MMORPG by your very narrow view?
I just follow common usage. It is not that important to have a strict definition anyway. It is not like I like or dislike a game because of its classification.
And responses such as this are exactly why the MMORPG Industry NEEDS companies to produce real MMORPGs. The true MMORPG playerbase does define MMORPG, and that definition stems from the Tabletop RPG definition, translating with little difference from RPG to MMORPG.
MMORPG is NOT MMOFPS.
MMORPG is NOT MOBA.
MMORPG is NOT just another MMO.
Why? If most people respond like me (i.e. they don't care about genre) then it follows the logic that companies do NOT need to make true MMORPGs because the market cares little about how "true" a MMORPG is.
I don't see that most people do; you seem to have been severely thrown off course by a couple of out of touch gaming sites and the running joke called SuperData.com. The differences between, say, LoL and WOW are pretty damn easy too see.
I'd say, you should probably give up on this. Even under the strictest literal interpretation of the term "Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game" it's still subjective. Thus, it means whatever suits a person saying it. I've watched the meaning of the 1st descriptor become meaningless. The initial term was "Massively" not "Massive". What's the difference? One is an Adjective the other is an Adverb. One would describe the game itself (Massive) the other describes how the game is played (Massively). But now, we are using the terms interchangeably so that any game that uses player accounts is now "Massively" And now even more recently, we've seen instances where even the 2nd descriptor is being watered down. As in the case with games like Hearthstone are being thrown in the mix. And While the game meets the "multi-player" term at a technical level, it's not the most appropriate use for this context. That being the context of MMOs. A 2 player game, while technical definable as multi, really would be better described as a 2-player, 1v1 or dual player game. That is,unless you have a reason to want to throw it into another category.
We are now at the point where you can 'legitimately' call any online game an MMO.
I dont think it fits what ever a person saying it means. Massive or Massively break down to the same thing, BIG. If you are finished exploring the entire game in the time it takes to finish a standard console game, 3-7 days. Then its not massive. With expansion you can one day be massive but at lunch you have a few instance hubs and some dungeons, you are not a MMO. GW1 fans may bash me for this but to me its like this. You ever feel like having Pizza and for what ever reason you dont have the time to go get one so you nuke a pizza pocket. Its a good fix but its still not the full deal.
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
MMO: I can get 5 different guilds/clans on the screen all dancing in a circle
MMORPG: I can get 5 different guilds/clans on the screen all dancing in a circle and after doing so for 3 days some are masters of breakdance and others do a perfect tango.
That's a little too clever
Originally posted by Kaladin
Personally, I never feel the requirement to put a hard definition on genres for things like video games, books, music etc.
When I explain a new game to a friend and try to describe the play style in words, I usually compare it to a game I know they have played. "It's an MMORPG similar to WoW", "It's a shooter similar to Call of Duty", "It's a single player RPG similar to Unchartered", "It's and Action RPG similar to God of War". Stuff like that. Then I explain the setting, and what is different about it. To me, that paints a better picture of what a game is like than saying "it's an MMORPG" It just narrows the field a bit further so people know what I'm talking about.
Or sometimes I put it like this: Wildstar is an MMORPG with WoW's controls, and LoL's combat. But explaining to people I know using games that I know they are at least familiar with would have more value.
As for an online forum where you don't know the people. I would just go with the popular ones because who has the time to find out what everybody has played if they are inquiring about a new game. If they are on an MMORPG forum, they are probably aware of the popular ones and their systems.
Do you not think it's a crutch for a lot of people though, rather than exploring something new, they're turned off by the alleged genre.
Originally posted by SpottyGekko
MMORPG is that part of online games where thousands of players simultaneously play together in a persistent virtual world. Player avatars persist between play sessions and accumulate progress in one form or another, and can potentially persist for years. If YOU are not logged-in to the game, the world still exists for other players. The world only stops existing when the software that creates it is shut down. The virtual world usually exists continuously, regardless of whether players login or not.
The above definition was quite easy to apply to MMO's at the dawn of the industry, when there was only one type of MMO. But as the industry grew and evolved, MMO has become the umbrella term for all online games that have fairly large numbers of players. Online Game (OG) is probably a more "correct" term nowadays, but old habits die hard...
A persistent world is definitely a common characteristic; however, you could debate that an FPS lobby is always there, the map a little less so.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer
I'd say, you should probably give up on this. Even under the strictest literal interpretation of the term "Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game" it's still subjective. Thus, it means whatever suits a person saying it. I've watched the meaning of the 1st descriptor become meaningless. The initial term was "Massively" not "Massive". What's the difference? One is an Adjective the other is an Adverb. One would describe the game itself (Massive) the other describes how the game is played (Massively). But now, we are using the terms interchangeably so that any game that uses player accounts is now "Massively" And now even more recently, we've seen instances where even the 2nd descriptor is being watered down. As in the case with games like Hearthstone are being thrown in the mix. And While the game meets the "multi-player" term at a technical level, it's not the most appropriate use for this context. That being the context of MMOs. A 2 player game, while technical definable as multi, really would be better described as a 2-player, 1v1 or dual player game. That is,unless you have a reason to want to throw it into another category.
We are now at the point where you can 'legitimately' call any online game an MMO.
The term has certainly changed, so at what point do we discard it? Or do we just keep using it despite the fact it no longer has that original meaning?
1. A massive multiplayer game - The game is located on a server which can handle at least a couple hundred parallel connections from different computers (I would set the lowest barrier to something like 200 connections, though the exact number is certainly disputeable). You play in a world in which you have the chance to meet any of the other other players by sheer random chance, at any time. You can form alliances of sorts (grouping, guild, raidforce, guild alliances etc).
2. A roleplaying game - The power of your character is not founded on any of your personal abilities. While you can play a character well or less well, the actual strength of the character is decided by a set of values, which can be called, for example, class, race, feat, ability, skill, etc. The challenge in playing the character is in choosing the best next action, i.e. it is an intellectual challenge - not in reaction speed or any other physical skill.
Variants:
- Instancing: Many modern MMORPGs have instancing. Personally I'm a most vocal opponent of this concept; I hate instancing. Instead of instancing, I rather want a game world in which there are enough copies of a ressource competed upon. To me, instancing kills the special MMORPG feeling. One of the reasons I loved Vanguard was because it had almost no instancing, with the exception of the Ancient Port Warehouse raid dungeon, the only raid dungeon in the whole game, which had six fixed instances; so at the beginning of a raiding session, you had to check each of them to find the one that was the emptiest. Just like any other dungeon in Vanguard, it was brilliantly done; it was probably the best part of the whole game.
- PvP: On a PvP server, it is also possible to directly compete with other players, specifically battle them.
The term has certainly changed, so at what point do we discard it? Or do we just keep using it despite the fact it no longer has that original meaning?
I still use the original meaning. Because I want a "classic MMORPG done right". Like Vanguard.
I still oppose instancing. An instanced game, like Guild Wars, simply doesnt give me any MMORPG feeling at all. Thus I quickly lose interest in playing it. Its like a singleplayer game - only online. Whats the friggin point ? Also Guild Wars had boring quests and I really hated the abilities, or rather the lack of abilities.
A MMORPG feeling, to me, only appears if you travel a huge world and have the chance to meet other players at any time, in any place, purely by random chance.
Ideally with PvP. But then it should be sportive PvP. I.e. ganking newbies and ganking players weakened by battling mobs is not sportive, just annoying.
Also, I want an item focused game. In which you can work hours, days, months to get a certain kind of equipment. Heck, in Vanguard I had to wait a friggin 18 months until I finally had a complete set of Palladium Armor for my Cleric.
MMORPG is a term that's been floating around for many years now but it seems to have lost its meaning.
Traditionally it breaks down to Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game but it's also shortened to MMO and used to refer to all manner of games.
In an increasingly online/connected industry, can we really define a game as an MMORPG alone?
Is it firmly reserved for the likes of WOW and Guild Wars?
Thanks for reading and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Guild Wars 1 is not an MMO.
I define an MMO the way wikipedia defines it. It is short for what you've written down - massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
What does this mean? You can have a massive number of players in one place AT THE SAME TIME. If there is no persistant world, it's not an MMO, simple as that.
So yeah, games like Guild Wars 1, League of Legends or whatever are not MMOs.
Originally posted by GeezerGamer
I'd say, you should probably give up on this. Even under the strictest literal interpretation of the term "Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game" it's still subjective. Thus, it means whatever suits a person saying it. I've watched the meaning of the 1st descriptor become meaningless. The initial term was "Massively" not "Massive". What's the difference? One is an Adjective the other is an Adverb. One would describe the game itself (Massive) the other describes how the game is played (Massively). But now, we are using the terms interchangeably so that any game that uses player accounts is now "Massively" And now even more recently, we've seen instances where even the 2nd descriptor is being watered down. As in the case with games like Hearthstone are being thrown in the mix. And While the game meets the "multi-player" term at a technical level, it's not the most appropriate use for this context. That being the context of MMOs. A 2 player game, while technical definable as multi, really would be better described as a 2-player, 1v1 or dual player game. That is,unless you have a reason to want to throw it into another category.
We are now at the point where you can 'legitimately' call any online game an MMO.
This. Too many people confuse the first M for massive. Even when people see massively multiplayer, they still get confused as to what massively means. I guess maybe too many non-native speakers can't appreciate the difference between an adverb and an adjective. Massively is an adverb which gives you more info on the adjective - multiplayer. An adverb can never be used to give more info for a noun. It's gramatically wrong.
MMOs are a wider term used to cover all massively multiplayer online games. In the beginning we only had MMORPGs. But then there were other massively multiplayer online games, e.g. massively multiplayer online first person shooters (MMOFPS). Those games still had a persitant world but were not RPGs.
This still doesn't mean you can call non-MMO games like MOBAs - MMOs.
Also MOBA is a stupid term made up by Riot because they didn't want to admit that they just cloned Dota. They couldn't say Dota-like game, now could they?
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by GeezerGamer
I'd say, you should probably give up on this. Even under the strictest literal interpretation of the term "Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game" it's still subjective. Thus, it means whatever suits a person saying it. I've watched the meaning of the 1st descriptor become meaningless. The initial term was "Massively" not "Massive". What's the difference? One is an Adjective the other is an Adverb. One would describe the game itself (Massive) the other describes how the game is played (Massively). But now, we are using the terms interchangeably so that any game that uses player accounts is now "Massively" And now even more recently, we've seen instances where even the 2nd descriptor is being watered down. As in the case with games like Hearthstone are being thrown in the mix. And While the game meets the "multi-player" term at a technical level, it's not the most appropriate use for this context. That being the context of MMOs. A 2 player game, while technical definable as multi, really would be better described as a 2-player, 1v1 or dual player game. That is,unless you have a reason to want to throw it into another category.
We are now at the point where you can 'legitimately' call any online game an MMO.
I dont think it fits what ever a person saying it means. Massive or Massively break down to the same thing, BIG. If you are finished exploring the entire game in the time it takes to finish a standard console game, 3-7 days. Then its not massive. With expansion you can one day be massive but at lunch you have a few instance hubs and some dungeons, you are not a MMO. GW1 fans may bash me for this but to me its like this. You ever feel like having Pizza and for what ever reason you dont have the time to go get one so you nuke a pizza pocket. Its a good fix but its still not the full deal.
Massive and massively break down to different things. For example, a massive multiplayer online game game can be used to describe what you are referring to. The game itself is massive. It's a game which is either massive in terms of content or massive in terms of number of players playing the game. Massively refers to the multiplayer part. You can't say a massively game. The actual multplayer part is massive. Which to me, it means a lot of players interacting with each other. When I play Dota, I only interact with 9 other people. I can't interact with the other 100k people playing the game. When I am playing WoW, I can interact with 10k people at the same time. I can come across other people by playing the game and not by creating a "new game" version of the world.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
MMORPG is a term that's been floating around for many years now but it seems to have lost its meaning.
Traditionally it breaks down to Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game but it's also shortened to MMO and used to refer to all manner of games.
As someone pointed out, MMORPG and MMO are different.
MMO is the Massively Multiplayer Online part - that is a non instanced world that can host numerous players and that continues to exist after you as a player disconnected.
In other categories, you have MMOFPS like Planetside2 - which definitely qualifies for the MMO part.
In an increasingly online/connected industry, can we really define a game as an MMORPG alone?
No I don't think we can just define games as MMORPG either. I mean if you look at games like GW2, WoW, TSW, etc. they are all considered MMORPG but they are still very different games.
But I think the part of the word that is problematic and unclear isn't so much the MMO part, it's more the RPG part. What I mean is: even for "Single Player RPG" you will have many different types of games, and so even terms such as "RPG", "FPS", "RTS", etc. can mean a lot of different things.
MMOs have a more or less agreed definition, and surely - as someone pointed, Heartstone or Diablo 3 do not qualify. Now it's true that people in forums will abuse the definition.
Is it firmly reserved for the likes of WOW and Guild Wars?
Guild Wars 1 was considered a CORPG, as it is instanced heavily (and there is no "living, breathing" world as such).
I just follow common usage. It is not that important to have a strict definition anyway. It is not like I like or dislike a game because of its classification.
And responses such as this are exactly why the MMORPG Industry NEEDS companies to produce real MMORPGs. The true MMORPG playerbase does define MMORPG, and that definition stems from the Tabletop RPG definition, translating with little difference from RPG to MMORPG.
Why? If most people respond like me (i.e. they don't care about genre) then it follows the logic that companies do NOT need to make true MMORPGs because the market cares little about how "true" a MMORPG is.
It's nice, though, to have agreed definitions when you communicate with someone - or at least as much as possible.
What I mean by this is: the simple fact that I understood the ideas of your post is because we all have an agreed system of communication and commonly agreed definitions of all the words you used in your post.
What's in it for you if you hate "qualifiers" and "naming"? At least if you like a specific gameplay, you can find games that are similarly enjoyable.
Only if you want to create things called MMORPGs or have a research hobby . As you can see , some people "don't care" but also don't want other define it .
I'm research hobby anyway .
MMO need "persistent game world" where all player can join in "one game" and play with other (multiplayer).
The "persistent world" of MMO need to allow large number of players (infinity in theory) playing together .
That's for MMO - massively multiplayer (online) , i don't need define "Online" , do i ?
The role playing game . It mean playing role of other or play as other .
Progression isn't RPG . that's all i want to say . What you call "progression" belong to simulation game genre .
Role playing only mean you role as other , no other than that .
If you join game and act as "a novice warrior" , you are role playing .
It easy to define "MMO" , but the RPG is large and combine many mechanic to make , so it harder to define it detail .
But make it simple , RPG mean you play as other .
Other genre have role playing mix in it .
For example in COD , you play as WW 2 soldier , it's RP element , though most of the gameplay is about FPS .
So MMORPG mean game where you join with other player (the number is infinity) to play as "other" (other depend on the setting of the game) .
You can call yourself "world travel" or "from future" if you want lol .
MMO need "persistent game world" where all player can join in "one game" and play with other (multiplayer).
That is not how it is commonly defined.
WoW has a large amount of gameplay not in a persistent game world (i.e. instances), so does TOR, World of Tanks and almost any game commonly known as a MMO.
If you want to define MMO like that, there are so few MMOs that the genre does not matter to most gamers.
Originally posted by Battlerock Mmorpg - obsolete video game genre from the late 1990's and 2000's. Also known as the genre that f2p killed.
While it's fair to say that it was at it's most prevalent in the 2000's, there's no way you can say F2P killed the genre. A number of new MMORPGs are F2P and plenty have gained no life by going F2P.
I'd say, you should probably give up on this. Even under the strictest literal interpretation of the term "Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game" it's still subjective. Thus, it means whatever suits a person saying it. I've watched the meaning of the 1st descriptor become meaningless. The initial term was "Massively" not "Massive". What's the difference? One is an Adjective the other is an Adverb. One would describe the game itself (Massive) the other describes how the game is played (Massively). But now, we are using the terms interchangeably so that any game that uses player accounts is now "Massively" And now even more recently, we've seen instances where even the 2nd descriptor is being watered down. As in the case with games like Hearthstone are being thrown in the mix. And While the game meets the "multi-player" term at a technical level, it's not the most appropriate use for this context. That being the context of MMOs. A 2 player game, while technical definable as multi, really would be better described as a 2-player, 1v1 or dual player game. That is,unless you have a reason to want to throw it into another category.
We are now at the point where you can 'legitimately' call any online game an MMO.
I dont think it fits what ever a person saying it means. Massive or Massively break down to the same thing, BIG. If you are finished exploring the entire game in the time it takes to finish a standard console game, 3-7 days. Then its not massive. With expansion you can one day be massive but at lunch you have a few instance hubs and some dungeons, you are not a MMO. GW1 fans may bash me for this but to me its like this. You ever feel like having Pizza and for what ever reason you dont have the time to go get one so you nuke a pizza pocket. Its a good fix but its still not the full deal.
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
Sure everything is subjective in the end, even math that most would think is black and white, ones and zeros. Fact is what started this great MMO ride kinda set the scale. EQ for one would take you days just to walk around and see every zone and thats before you took the time to get to know the zone and exp there. Same with DAoC again just walking through the every zone would take considerable time. As the foot print for MMO, massive has been established. Same with FPS, going to a 12v12 would seem small and empty. To be a MMORPG, Massive needs to feel like it will take considerable time to explore and that there is a good chance you may not get that done before more content is added.
We have all played a MMO that didnt get the massive part right and we all felt like it didnt stand up to the title MMO.
I have a very narrow definition of an MMORPG and literally only a few titles are close to being an MMORPG for me.
For me most games that are defined by press, players and industry as MMORPG are not MMORPGs.
To give you an example - Swtor is not an MMORPG for me.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
Sure everything is subjective in the end, even math that most would think is black and white, ones and zeros. Fact is what started this great MMO ride kinda set the scale. EQ for one would take you days just to walk around and see every zone and thats before you took the time to get to know the zone and exp there. Same with DAoC again just walking through the every zone would take considerable time. As the foot print for MMO, massive has been established. Same with FPS, going to a 12v12 would seem small and empty. To be a MMORPG, Massive needs to feel like it will take considerable time to explore and that there is a good chance you may not get that done before more content is added.
We have all played a MMO that didnt get the massive part right and we all felt like it didnt stand up to the title MMO.
I don't disagree, but we can't really define a genre by one or two games or their limits/ lack there of. My point was essentially what counts as massive? To me 100+ people on my screen looks massive, to another it doesn't. Judging it by world size again has some draw backs in that even the smallest of MMORPG worlds has a lot more real estate than your typical non MMO game. Some of the things people say and judge this on, would essentially be like saying most other RPGs aren't RPGS because they don't do everything that SKyrim or TES games generally do.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
I look at diablo the same way, it is the epitome of hack and slash gaming, it has some RPG features, but it's not exactly an RPG. As playing a role/ playing a persona, aren't the key elements of the game. I"ve always considered it a virtual pinata.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
Sure everything is subjective in the end, even math that most would think is black and white, ones and zeros. Fact is what started this great MMO ride kinda set the scale. EQ for one would take you days just to walk around and see every zone and thats before you took the time to get to know the zone and exp there. Same with DAoC again just walking through the every zone would take considerable time. As the foot print for MMO, massive has been established. Same with FPS, going to a 12v12 would seem small and empty. To be a MMORPG, Massive needs to feel like it will take considerable time to explore and that there is a good chance you may not get that done before more content is added.
We have all played a MMO that didnt get the massive part right and we all felt like it didnt stand up to the title MMO.
I don't disagree, but we can't really define a genre by one or two games or their limits/ lack there of. My point was essentially what counts as massive? To me 100+ people on my screen looks massive, to another it doesn't. Judging it by world size again has some draw backs in that even the smallest of MMORPG worlds has a lot more real estate than your typical non MMO game. Some of the things people say and judge this on, would essentially be like saying most other RPGs aren't RPGS because they don't do everything that SKyrim or TES games generally do.
Games like EQ and DAoC set the scale but this standard is not set by a few games. Its also the MMOs that followed. WoW, Rift, SWToR and many of the top MMOs to date all had massive as their standard. So big most gamers did or will not see all of it. Massive maybe subjective but the standard is not. Its right a long the line of any industry standard. Small Med and Large, you order a large soda pop and you get handed a 12oz cup you say "Whats this???" MMOs are no different. Massive means something in this industry. Will people except less? Sure, but not the majority that knows the industry standard.
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
Sure everything is subjective in the end, even math that most would think is black and white, ones and zeros. Fact is what started this great MMO ride kinda set the scale. EQ for one would take you days just to walk around and see every zone and thats before you took the time to get to know the zone and exp there. Same with DAoC again just walking through the every zone would take considerable time. As the foot print for MMO, massive has been established. Same with FPS, going to a 12v12 would seem small and empty. To be a MMORPG, Massive needs to feel like it will take considerable time to explore and that there is a good chance you may not get that done before more content is added.
We have all played a MMO that didnt get the massive part right and we all felt like it didnt stand up to the title MMO.
I don't disagree, but we can't really define a genre by one or two games or their limits/ lack there of. My point was essentially what counts as massive? To me 100+ people on my screen looks massive, to another it doesn't. Judging it by world size again has some draw backs in that even the smallest of MMORPG worlds has a lot more real estate than your typical non MMO game. Some of the things people say and judge this on, would essentially be like saying most other RPGs aren't RPGS because they don't do everything that SKyrim or TES games generally do.
Games like EQ and DAoC set the scale but this standard is not set by a few games. Its also the MMOs that followed. WoW, Rift, SWToR and many of the top MMOs to date all had massive as their standard. So big most gamers did or will not see all of it. Massive maybe subjective but the standard is not. Its right a long the line of any industry standard. Small Med and Large, you order a large soda pop and you get handed a 12oz cup you say "Whats this???" MMOs are no different. Massive means something in this industry. Will people except less? Sure, but not the majority that knows the industry standard.
That's just the thing many used to argue TOR wasn't an MMORPG due to instancing, story focus, etc.etc.etc. Like I said I pretty much agree with you on your definition of the genre. Many however do not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Precisely.
This is logical and makes it simple to identify something. Lumping a number of things that are distinct from each other under the same name is senseless.
"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
Comments
MMORPG is NOT MMOFPS.
MMORPG is NOT MOBA.
MMORPG is NOT just another MMO.
Everquest had a first person mode. So, if you were playing a Ranger while in first person mode would Everquest be considered a "true" MMORPG by your very narrow view?
Do you know what the word "if" means?
Big is subjective... Normal RPGs only allow for small numbers 2-8 or so.. The most common FPS is around 32v32 as the max.. Strategy is typically 1v1 or 2v2... Same with fighting games... So what counts as big considering what a typical game offers?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Got milk?
A MMORPG is, to me:
1. A massive multiplayer game - The game is located on a server which can handle at least a couple hundred parallel connections from different computers (I would set the lowest barrier to something like 200 connections, though the exact number is certainly disputeable). You play in a world in which you have the chance to meet any of the other other players by sheer random chance, at any time. You can form alliances of sorts (grouping, guild, raidforce, guild alliances etc).
2. A roleplaying game - The power of your character is not founded on any of your personal abilities. While you can play a character well or less well, the actual strength of the character is decided by a set of values, which can be called, for example, class, race, feat, ability, skill, etc. The challenge in playing the character is in choosing the best next action, i.e. it is an intellectual challenge - not in reaction speed or any other physical skill.
Variants:
- Instancing: Many modern MMORPGs have instancing. Personally I'm a most vocal opponent of this concept; I hate instancing. Instead of instancing, I rather want a game world in which there are enough copies of a ressource competed upon. To me, instancing kills the special MMORPG feeling. One of the reasons I loved Vanguard was because it had almost no instancing, with the exception of the Ancient Port Warehouse raid dungeon, the only raid dungeon in the whole game, which had six fixed instances; so at the beginning of a raiding session, you had to check each of them to find the one that was the emptiest. Just like any other dungeon in Vanguard, it was brilliantly done; it was probably the best part of the whole game.
- PvP: On a PvP server, it is also possible to directly compete with other players, specifically battle them.
Actually no other kind of entertainment has such a good money to entertainment ratio.
A well done MMORPG can keep you busy basically 24/7 for what ? Like 15 bucks a month. Try to beat THAT. I wouldnt see how.
If someone would give me another MMORPG of the quality of Vanguard, I would instantly start playing again.
Not gonna happen any time soon though. Oh well.
I still use the original meaning. Because I want a "classic MMORPG done right". Like Vanguard.
I still oppose instancing. An instanced game, like Guild Wars, simply doesnt give me any MMORPG feeling at all. Thus I quickly lose interest in playing it. Its like a singleplayer game - only online. Whats the friggin point ? Also Guild Wars had boring quests and I really hated the abilities, or rather the lack of abilities.
A MMORPG feeling, to me, only appears if you travel a huge world and have the chance to meet other players at any time, in any place, purely by random chance.
Ideally with PvP. But then it should be sportive PvP. I.e. ganking newbies and ganking players weakened by battling mobs is not sportive, just annoying.
Also, I want an item focused game. In which you can work hours, days, months to get a certain kind of equipment. Heck, in Vanguard I had to wait a friggin 18 months until I finally had a complete set of Palladium Armor for my Cleric.
Guild Wars 1 is not an MMO.
I define an MMO the way wikipedia defines it. It is short for what you've written down - massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
What does this mean? You can have a massive number of players in one place AT THE SAME TIME. If there is no persistant world, it's not an MMO, simple as that.
So yeah, games like Guild Wars 1, League of Legends or whatever are not MMOs.
This. Too many people confuse the first M for massive. Even when people see massively multiplayer, they still get confused as to what massively means. I guess maybe too many non-native speakers can't appreciate the difference between an adverb and an adjective. Massively is an adverb which gives you more info on the adjective - multiplayer. An adverb can never be used to give more info for a noun. It's gramatically wrong.
MMOs are a wider term used to cover all massively multiplayer online games. In the beginning we only had MMORPGs. But then there were other massively multiplayer online games, e.g. massively multiplayer online first person shooters (MMOFPS). Those games still had a persitant world but were not RPGs.
This still doesn't mean you can call non-MMO games like MOBAs - MMOs.
Also MOBA is a stupid term made up by Riot because they didn't want to admit that they just cloned Dota. They couldn't say Dota-like game, now could they?
Massive and massively break down to different things. For example, a massive multiplayer online game game can be used to describe what you are referring to. The game itself is massive. It's a game which is either massive in terms of content or massive in terms of number of players playing the game. Massively refers to the multiplayer part. You can't say a massively game. The actual multplayer part is massive. Which to me, it means a lot of players interacting with each other. When I play Dota, I only interact with 9 other people. I can't interact with the other 100k people playing the game. When I am playing WoW, I can interact with 10k people at the same time. I can come across other people by playing the game and not by creating a "new game" version of the world.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
So you're a Candy Crush lover too?
As someone pointed out, MMORPG and MMO are different.
MMO is the Massively Multiplayer Online part - that is a non instanced world that can host numerous players and that continues to exist after you as a player disconnected.
In other categories, you have MMOFPS like Planetside2 - which definitely qualifies for the MMO part.
No I don't think we can just define games as MMORPG either. I mean if you look at games like GW2, WoW, TSW, etc. they are all considered MMORPG but they are still very different games.
But I think the part of the word that is problematic and unclear isn't so much the MMO part, it's more the RPG part. What I mean is: even for "Single Player RPG" you will have many different types of games, and so even terms such as "RPG", "FPS", "RTS", etc. can mean a lot of different things.
MMOs have a more or less agreed definition, and surely - as someone pointed, Heartstone or Diablo 3 do not qualify. Now it's true that people in forums will abuse the definition.
Guild Wars 1 was considered a CORPG, as it is instanced heavily (and there is no "living, breathing" world as such).
It's nice, though, to have agreed definitions when you communicate with someone - or at least as much as possible.
What I mean by this is: the simple fact that I understood the ideas of your post is because we all have an agreed system of communication and commonly agreed definitions of all the words you used in your post.
What's in it for you if you hate "qualifiers" and "naming"? At least if you like a specific gameplay, you can find games that are similarly enjoyable.
Only if you want to create things called MMORPGs or have a research hobby . As you can see , some people "don't care" but also don't want other define it .
I'm research hobby anyway .
MMO need "persistent game world" where all player can join in "one game" and play with other (multiplayer).
The "persistent world" of MMO need to allow large number of players (infinity in theory) playing together .
That's for MMO - massively multiplayer (online) , i don't need define "Online" , do i ?
The role playing game . It mean playing role of other or play as other .
Progression isn't RPG . that's all i want to say . What you call "progression" belong to simulation game genre .
Role playing only mean you role as other , no other than that .
If you join game and act as "a novice warrior" , you are role playing .
It easy to define "MMO" , but the RPG is large and combine many mechanic to make , so it harder to define it detail .
But make it simple , RPG mean you play as other .
Other genre have role playing mix in it .
For example in COD , you play as WW 2 soldier , it's RP element , though most of the gameplay is about FPS .
So MMORPG mean game where you join with other player (the number is infinity) to play as "other" (other depend on the setting of the game) .
You can call yourself "world travel" or "from future" if you want lol .
That is not how it is commonly defined.
WoW has a large amount of gameplay not in a persistent game world (i.e. instances), so does TOR, World of Tanks and almost any game commonly known as a MMO.
If you want to define MMO like that, there are so few MMOs that the genre does not matter to most gamers.
Got milk?
Sure everything is subjective in the end, even math that most would think is black and white, ones and zeros. Fact is what started this great MMO ride kinda set the scale. EQ for one would take you days just to walk around and see every zone and thats before you took the time to get to know the zone and exp there. Same with DAoC again just walking through the every zone would take considerable time. As the foot print for MMO, massive has been established. Same with FPS, going to a 12v12 would seem small and empty. To be a MMORPG, Massive needs to feel like it will take considerable time to explore and that there is a good chance you may not get that done before more content is added.
We have all played a MMO that didnt get the massive part right and we all felt like it didnt stand up to the title MMO.
I have a very narrow definition of an MMORPG and literally only a few titles are close to being an MMORPG for me.
For me most games that are defined by press, players and industry as MMORPG are not MMORPGs.
To give you an example - Swtor is not an MMORPG for me.
It is not MMORPGs only as well. In example many single player/multiplayer games defined as "RPG" are not RPG for me. Example - Diablo. I don't consider it an RPG. It is hack&slash, not an RPG.
I don't disagree, but we can't really define a genre by one or two games or their limits/ lack there of. My point was essentially what counts as massive? To me 100+ people on my screen looks massive, to another it doesn't. Judging it by world size again has some draw backs in that even the smallest of MMORPG worlds has a lot more real estate than your typical non MMO game. Some of the things people say and judge this on, would essentially be like saying most other RPGs aren't RPGS because they don't do everything that SKyrim or TES games generally do.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I look at diablo the same way, it is the epitome of hack and slash gaming, it has some RPG features, but it's not exactly an RPG. As playing a role/ playing a persona, aren't the key elements of the game. I"ve always considered it a virtual pinata.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Games like EQ and DAoC set the scale but this standard is not set by a few games. Its also the MMOs that followed. WoW, Rift, SWToR and many of the top MMOs to date all had massive as their standard. So big most gamers did or will not see all of it. Massive maybe subjective but the standard is not. Its right a long the line of any industry standard. Small Med and Large, you order a large soda pop and you get handed a 12oz cup you say "Whats this???" MMOs are no different. Massive means something in this industry. Will people except less? Sure, but not the majority that knows the industry standard.
Its Multiplayer,
Its Online,
Its..................................................................................fade to black
3 words slapped together that sound good and imply something but vague enough to mean whatever agenda you want to push.
That's just the thing many used to argue TOR wasn't an MMORPG due to instancing, story focus, etc.etc.etc. Like I said I pretty much agree with you on your definition of the genre. Many however do not.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So what?
I like Diablo 3, and i will play it whether it is called a hack & slash, ARPG, RPG or even MMO. Label of a game has no effect on whether i like a game or not.
Chair and table don't have to be named chair and table, they can be both be called chair and it won't have any effect on how much I will enjoy sitting on them or eating from them.
Still it is better to call them by two separate names instead of one shared name.
Precisely.
This is logical and makes it simple to identify something. Lumping a number of things that are distinct from each other under the same name is senseless.
"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