There needs to be some branching out otherwise these sites are not going to survive on the piddley amount of mmorpg's coming out.
You've been here since 2005 and you really believe that?
There is more interest in a wider variety of MMORPGs now than ever and no, not just because they are branching out to games that can be called MMOs but because there are more MMORPGs released and in development that people are interested in.There are more MMORPGs in development that have forum goers interest than I ever recall. Granted I came to this site one year after you but how many games were people interested in 2005 that were in development?
When I came in 2006 it was pretty much just Vanguard. Than it was Warhammer and AOC. There was minor interest in other indie games but not to the same extent as now. This year we still saw three AAA MMOs released. Wildstar released, ESO released and archeage just that I remember. We saw expansions for almost all of the surviving triple A games released and there is more of them now and we have a ton of games that seem to have a genuie following in development. More variety of MMORPGs that I see people being excited about now than I've ever seen.
I don't buy for a second that they can't survive without branching out. Atleast not because there isn't as much MMORPG news as there used to be. Maybe it could have something to do with increased competition and social media playing a bigger role when compared to gaming sites as this but I'm not sure about that either. If I had to guess I would just say they are looking for a wider audience because they can.
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Well, do the math, how many mmo's were released this year? Now how many are expected to "definitely" release next year?
Can an mmo site still stay in business with the news about a few mmo's all the while having forum goers continually argue over the same topics such as sandbox vs themepark, how games are being monetized and solo vs group play?
My guess is that is going to get old(er).
The problem is one of terminology. All MMORPGS are MMOs but not all MMOS are MMORPGS. People who use the term MMO when they more specific MMORPG are aiding in the problem. Is it really that much harder to add RPG to MMO when you type?
except it's a list of mixed types of "mmo's"
If they were to add the "rpg" then league of legends would be an "mmorpg" which it isn't.
So all of the games are massive, multiplayer and online. but not all of them get the rpg.
Volgore is implying that any game company with ad dollars gets to call its game an "mmo". But that's not really what's happening. I imagine the same with Massively though I really don't follow the site all that much.
There needs to be some branching out otherwise these sites are not going to survive on the piddley amount of mmorpg's coming out.
It is a mix which is why it is more important to be specific when you mean mmorpg and not use mmo. How many varieties of apples are their? If you want to talk about Granny Smith Apples but just called them Apples that would get mixed in with all the other types. I think people are just being lazy saying MMO instead of MMORPG and shouldn't get their panties in a bunch when MMO means other things. To be a bit more clear: MMORTS, MMOFPS, MMORPGs are all MMOs.
Your last sentence is correct. MMOs cover MMORTS, MMOFPS, MMORPGs. But those games like Lol are neither MMORTS, MMOFPS or MMORPGs. A MMOFPS is something like Planetside. It is exactly the same concept as MMORPG but instead of an RPG you have an FPS or RTS.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Well, do the math, how many mmo's were released this year? Now how many are expected to "definitely" release next year?
Can an mmo site still stay in business with the news about a few mmo's all the while having forum goers continually argue over the same topics such as sandbox vs themepark, how games are being monetized and solo vs group play?
My guess is that is going to get old(er).
The problem is one of terminology. All MMORPGS are MMOs but not all MMOS are MMORPGS. People who use the term MMO when they more specific MMORPG are aiding in the problem. Is it really that much harder to add RPG to MMO when you type?
except it's a list of mixed types of "mmo's"
If they were to add the "rpg" then league of legends would be an "mmorpg" which it isn't.
So all of the games are massive, multiplayer and online. but not all of them get the rpg.
Volgore is implying that any game company with ad dollars gets to call its game an "mmo". But that's not really what's happening. I imagine the same with Massively though I really don't follow the site all that much.
There needs to be some branching out otherwise these sites are not going to survive on the piddley amount of mmorpg's coming out.
It is a mix which is why it is more important to be specific when you mean mmorpg and not use mmo. How many varieties of apples are their? If you want to talk about Granny Smith Apples but just called them Apples that would get mixed in with all the other types. I think people are just being lazy saying MMO instead of MMORPG and shouldn't get their panties in a bunch when MMO means other things. To be a bit more clear: MMORTS, MMOFPS, MMORPGs are all MMOs.
Your last sentence is correct. MMOs cover MMORTS, MMOFPS, MMORPGs. But those games like Lol are neither MMORTS, MMOFPS or MMORPGs. A MMOFPS is something like Planetside. It is exactly the same concept as MMORPG but instead of an RPG you have an FPS or RTS.
True enough, for games like LOL they are more in the class of Multiplayer Online Games, or MOG's as a broad term, which also includes games like Counterstrike etc. Like the difference between Counterstrike or BF3 etc. when played online, is just one of scaling, compared to an MMOFPS like Planetside 2, so it is also with MOBA's and other MOG's when compared to MMO's in general.
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
When the top line of the game list says, and i quote "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", it implies the list is not a list of any games, but MMORPGs.
And yes, LoL is in the list titled "MMORPG Gamelist" .. and if that is not "consider games like LoL MMOs", what is?
Originally posted by Forgrimm You have a pathological obsession with broadening the definition of mmo's to the point where it's basically consumed your entire existence on these forums; over 20,000 posts and a good portion of them saying the same thing again and again and again. Not only does the topic cause you obvious distress, but it's disruptive to this community because it derails almost every thread that you post in. I'm saying this with all respect and sincerity, for your own benefit as well as this community's benefit: you need to find out why it is that you're so fixated on this topic and find a way to move on.
Well, do the math, how many mmo's were released this year? Now how many are expected to "definitely" release next year?
Can an mmo site still stay in business with the news about a few mmo's all the while having forum goers continually argue over the same topics such as sandbox vs themepark, how games are being monetized and solo vs group play?
My guess is that is going to get old(er).
The problem is one of terminology. All MMORPGS are MMOs but not all MMOS are MMORPGS. People who use the term MMO when they more specific MMORPG are aiding in the problem. Is it really that much harder to add RPG to MMO when you type?
except it's a list of mixed types of "mmo's"
If they were to add the "rpg" then league of legends would be an "mmorpg" which it isn't.
So all of the games are massive, multiplayer and online. but not all of them get the rpg.
Thing is LoL or WoT are nowhere near massively. They are just normal lobby multiplayer games, exactly like Call of Duty or Starcraft is. RPG or not have nothing to do with it.
If you are looking for "MMO" that is not "MMORPG" then Planetside 1&2 are non-RPG MMO, to be exact MMOFPS and not much more.
It all does not matter though. MMO press is struggling so they will include anything and report on anything to fight for users/viewers. They will call 1v1 card games MMO (they already do) and they will report on single player games, facebook games or single player mobile games if someone at managment will decide it is good idea. They simply want to stay in business, when MMO/MMORPG market is shrinking.
Originally posted by Forgrimm You have a pathological obsession with broadening the definition of mmo's to the point where it's basically consumed your entire existence on these forums; over 20,000 posts and a good portion of them saying the same thing again and again and again. Not only does the topic cause you obvious distress, but it's disruptive to this community because it derails almost every thread that you post in. I'm saying this with all respect and sincerity, for your own benefit as well as this community's benefit: you need to find out why it is that you're so fixated on this topic and find a way to move on.
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
When the top line of the game list says, and i quote "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", it implies the list is not a list of any games, but MMORPGs.
And yes, LoL is in the list titled "MMORPG Gamelist" .. and if that is not "consider games like LoL MMOs", what is?
It's called "inaccurate". It happens on the Internet from time to time.
There needs to be some branching out otherwise these sites are not going to survive on the piddley amount of mmorpg's coming out.
You've been here since 2005 and you really believe that?
There is more interest in a wider variety of MMORPGs now than ever and no, not just because they are branching out to games that can be called MMOs but because there are more MMORPGs released and in development that people are interested in.There are more MMORPGs in development that have forum goers interest than I ever recall. Granted I came to this site one year after you but how many games were people interested in 2005 that were in development?
Development is taking longer and being here since 2005 I recall this site have more news on more mmo's that were either coming out or coming out soon.
In the last year we really didn't talk about a lot of mmo's. Wildstar, Archeage, ESO, and a handful of indies. Not to mention the SAME forum topics over and over and over again.
We're waiting longer and longer for, not only releases, but news.
That is where my comment stems from.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I had to check dates to be sure this was a new thread and not a necro of one from around the time Destiny came out.
But FYI Massively covers a number of MOBAs and other non-MMO online games and has been doing so for years "Not so Massively" column, but categorises them various as "psuedo-MMOs" (e.g. that was the head for one of their awards this year, or "MOBAs, roguelikes, MMOTCGs, and other games that aren't quite MMOs."
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
When the top line of the game list says, and i quote "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", it implies the list is not a list of any games, but MMORPGs.
And yes, LoL is in the list titled "MMORPG Gamelist" .. and if that is not "consider games like LoL MMOs", what is?
It's called "inaccurate". It happens on the Internet from time to time.
"Inaccurate" for years without a correction? "Inaccurate" not only on this site, but also massively (another big MMO site) too?
I would say this "inaccurate" is turning into "accurate" just by common usage.
Mmorph.com announced a while ago that list was useless and that it will be made to be more accurate sometime around when the whole site is revamped. So, sorry Seldom. Looks like you'll have to cling on to something else.
"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
Originally posted by Cecropia Mmorph.com announced a while ago that list was useless and that it will be made to be more accurate sometime around when the whole site is revamped. So, sorry Seldom. Looks like you'll have to cling on to something else.
They have not done so yet, have they?
Plus, given the decline of classical MMORPGs, may be they should just follow massively.com .. and broaden the definitions of MMO anyway. It is not set in stone, you know.
Originally posted by Cecropia Mmorph.com announced a while ago that list was useless and that it will be made to be more accurate sometime around when the whole site is revamped. So, sorry Seldom. Looks like you'll have to cling on to something else.
They have not done so yet, have they?
Plus, given the decline of classical MMORPGs, may be they should just follow massively.com .. and broaden the definitions of MMO anyway. It is not set in stone, you know.
Congrats on the successful troll thread. 5 pages, A+.
Ok I'll bite in hopes of actually saying or explaining this in a way that hasn't been done. So to you a massive multiplayer game is WOW. However WOT is not because in WOW you have thousands of players running around in 1 server. Well actually lets say you do have 1k players on 1 server. How many do you encounter at any given time? Most of them are running around scattered. You think because they are on the same server that puts them in the same room and category. Yet in WOT they also have 1 thousand players all on 1 server. Difference is they cannot encounter all of them in the same place at the same time. And lets be honest here if 1k players all decided to show up in the same place in WOW then the servers would go down. So your definition of a massive game actually has players spread out in their own little rooms enjoying the game. Which is exactly what WOT does it puts them in their own little rooms. Oh wait don't forget there's a lobby where you can encounter a few thousand players all at the same time in WOT. So its a massive game they just don't put all the players together in the same place at the same time. Just like WOW and every game in existence. So if you really want to just argue for the sake of arguing you can define how many players it takes to be massive. Which would mean that GW2 has massive pvp and ESO, EVE also have massive pvp but WOW has just pvp without the massive part.
Originally posted by Cecropia Mmorph.com announced a while ago that list was useless and that it will be made to be more accurate sometime around when the whole site is revamped. So, sorry Seldom. Looks like you'll have to cling on to something else.
They have not done so yet, have they?
Plus, given the decline of classical MMORPGs, may be they should just follow massively.com .. and broaden the definitions of MMO anyway. It is not set in stone, you know.
Congrats on the successful troll thread. 5 pages, A+.
Consider the thread my present to those who like to debate (and be honest, definition of MMOs is a hot one .. whether it is me that started it or not) on the forum.
So what do you think about massively.com .. continuing broadening of the term MMORPG? Do you think it will spread to more sites (since massively is pretty big & prominent)?
So if you really want to just argue for the sake of arguing you can define how many players it takes to be massive.
many have tried that here. There is no consensus. I think it is more illuminating to just see how, on the internet, particularly big & influential sites, categorized MMOs.
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
When the top line of the game list says, and i quote "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", it implies the list is not a list of any games, but MMORPGs.
And yes, LoL is in the list titled "MMORPG Gamelist" .. and if that is not "consider games like LoL MMOs", what is?
It's called "inaccurate". It happens on the Internet from time to time.
"Inaccurate" for years without a correction? "Inaccurate" not only on this site, but also massively (another big MMO site) too?
I would say this "inaccurate" is turning into "accurate" just by common usage.
So 2 sites that are including games that are not under the definition in order to offer material for the crossover segment of the audience is now common usage? I think you are over estimating the size and grasp of these two web sites. For common usage, you'd have to go to the game's player bases. And I think most people who play the games you are calling MMOs but really aren't, don't really consider them MMOs but MOBAs and FPSs etc.
Originally posted by filmoret Ok I'll bite in hopes of actually saying or explaining this in a way that hasn't been done. So to you a massive multiplayer game is WOW. However WOT is not because in WOW you have thousands of players running around in 1 server. Well actually lets say you do have 1k players on 1 server. How many do you encounter at any given time? Most of them are running around scattered. You think because they are on the same server that puts them in the same room and category. Yet in WOT they also have 1 thousand players all on 1 server. Difference is they cannot encounter all of them in the same place at the same time. And lets be honest here if 1k players all decided to show up in the same place in WOW then the servers would go down. So your definition of a massive game actually has players spread out in their own little rooms enjoying the game. Which is exactly what WOT does it puts them in their own little rooms. Oh wait don't forget there's a lobby where you can encounter a few thousand players all at the same time in WOT. So its a massive game they just don't put all the players together in the same place at the same time. Just like WOW and every game in existence. So if you really want to just argue for the sake of arguing you can define how many players it takes to be massive. Which would mean that GW2 has massive pvp and ESO, EVE also have massive pvp but WOW has just pvp without the massive part.
Using WOT is perhaps not conducive to your argument as it contains too many contradictions that render your argument meaningless.
In the case of WoW you can in fact have several hundred players in the same place, and while battlegrounds deal with set numbers of players, it doesn't apply to the contested areas, where you can have hundreds of players fighting over them, oops, in case you didn't notice that means WoW does actually do massive PVP in a way that MOBA's and games like WOT is unable to cater to. Also, WoW is a persistent world, WOT is just a lobby game, as are 99.99999% of all MOBA's, while characters do have a degree of persistence, the world does not, as its just scenarios that are fought over, in that sense WOT has much in common to MOBA's like DOTA2 and LOL, there is no persistent world and its just about battlegrounds, which is why they are called MOBA's if in doubt perhaps its worth remembering what MO means in MOBA, and why they are not in fact, called MMOBA's
If at some point in the future these games acquire a persistent world feature, and, support more than a half dozen or so players in the same area at the same time, ideally to be called an MMO class game you should be able to play alongside at least 100 other players, as any horde player in WoW will tell you, it makes attacking Stormwind a hell of a lot more fun
So yeah, if MOBA's supported more players and had a persistent world, there might be something to the argument behind them qualifying as a MMO, unless of course, massively is somehow reduced to, more than 1 player, and persistent worlds relaxed to, battleground/arena that lasts for about 5 minutes. Probably not going to happen though
So 2 sites that are including games that are not under the definition in order to offer material for the crossover segment of the audience is now common usage? I think you are over estimating the size and grasp of these two web sites. For common usage, you'd have to go to the game's player bases. And I think most people who play the games you are calling MMOs but really aren't, don't really consider them MMOs but MOBAs and FPSs etc.
just that you are not looking does not mean that there aren't more.
Take WoT for an example .... many review sites call it a MMO. And you really have no idea what most people consider. But it is a fact that MMORPG, massively, superdata, and newszoo consider many you would like not as MMO .. MMOs.
Thing is LoL or WoT are nowhere near massively. They are just normal lobby multiplayer games, exactly like Call of Duty or Starcraft is. RPG or not have nothing to do with it.
If you are looking for "MMO" that is not "MMORPG" then Planetside 1&2 are non-RPG MMO, to be exact MMOFPS and not much more.
It all does not matter though. MMO press is struggling so they will include anything and report on anything to fight for users/viewers. They will call 1v1 card games MMO (they already do) and they will report on single player games, facebook games or single player mobile games if someone at managment will decide it is good idea. They simply want to stay in business, when MMO/MMORPG market is shrinking.
Well, now, wait a minute ...
Though I wouldn't, at first glance, consider giving them the "massively" word that is usually set aside for the traditional idea of an mmo(rpg or whatever) let's see what really is being considered.
Though my first mmo was an older mmo with a decent server size, AND I met quite a few people over the several years I played it, I can't rightfully say I met thousands of players. Not even hundreds if you want to count "met" as me having actual conversations with these people.
The truth about the massively (as I see it) is that circumstances are only going to have you interface with a certain amount of people over the course of your play time. Part of this has to do with where you level, your schedule, the schedule of others, etc.
So for all the "massively" that people like to tout as a prime draw for mmo's(rpg's whatever) I highly doubt that most people will attest to meeting and talking with thousands upon thousands of people. I'd find it hard to believe.
The idea is that while out in the world you"could" meet just about anyone. That's sort of the thrust of it all.
My understanding of lobby games (as they were never my taste so I don't play them) is that you will be matched with any number of the thousands of players who are also looking play. So your pool is also a great many people and you will only be matched with a subset of those people during your course of play.
Therefore the same thing is sort of achieved. In both the traditional mmo and these lobby games you will meet and play with/against a subset of a far larger or "massive" group of people.
Given that, I can easily understand why someone would consider those games as earning the "massivley" word even if the idea of community in them might take part more on some forum. At least as far as my understanding of these games go. Perhaps one can "shoot the shit" during game play, allowing these games to have more in game community.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So 2 sites that are including games that are not under the definition in order to offer material for the crossover segment of the audience is now common usage? I think you are over estimating the size and grasp of these two web sites. For common usage, you'd have to go to the game's player bases. And I think most people who play the games you are calling MMOs but really aren't, don't really consider them MMOs but MOBAs and FPSs etc.
just that you are not looking does not mean that there aren't more.
Take WoT for an example .... many review sites call it a MMO. And you really have no idea what most people consider. But it is a fact that MMORPG, massively, superdata, and newszoo consider many you would like not as MMO .. MMOs.
and all you have is ... your opinion.
This is a strange yet sad crusade you have undertaken. Unfortunately, I fear that as things unfold, you are going to end up wondering why you put so much of your time and energy into something that just never happens.
Good luck, Seldon.
"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
Thing is LoL or WoT are nowhere near massively. They are just normal lobby multiplayer games, exactly like Call of Duty or Starcraft is. RPG or not have nothing to do with it.
If you are looking for "MMO" that is not "MMORPG" then Planetside 1&2 are non-RPG MMO, to be exact MMOFPS and not much more.
It all does not matter though. MMO press is struggling so they will include anything and report on anything to fight for users/viewers. They will call 1v1 card games MMO (they already do) and they will report on single player games, facebook games or single player mobile games if someone at managment will decide it is good idea. They simply want to stay in business, when MMO/MMORPG market is shrinking.
Well, now, wait a minute ...
Though I wouldn't, at first glance, consider giving them the "massively" word that is usually set aside for the traditional idea of an mmo(rpg or whatever) let's see what really is being considered.
Though my first mmo was an older mmo with a decent server size, AND I met quite a few people over the several years I played it, I can't rightfully say I met thousands of players. Not even hundreds if you want to count "met" as me having actual conversations with these people.
The truth about the massively (as I see it) is that circumstances are only going to have you interface with a certain amount of people over the course of your play time. Part of this has to do with where you level, your schedule, the schedule of others, etc.
So for all the "massively" that people like to tout as a prime draw for mmo's(rpg's whatever) I highly doubt that most people will attest to meeting and talking with thousands upon thousands of people. I'd find it hard to believe.
The idea is that while out in the world you"could" meet just about anyone. That's sort of the thrust of it all.
My understanding of lobby games (as they were never my taste so I don't play them) is that you will be matched with any number of the thousands of players who are also looking play. So your pool is also a great many people and you will only be matched with a subset of those people during your course of play.
Therefore the same thing is sort of achieved. In both the traditional mmo and these lobby games you will meet and play with/against a subset of a far larger or "massive" group of people.
Given that, I can easily understand why someone would consider those games as earning the "massivley" word even if the idea of community in them might take part more on some forum. At least as far as my understanding of these games go. Perhaps one can "shoot the shit" during game play, allowing these games to have more in game community.
The different is quite distinct though, Sovrath. Otherwise, every online multiplayer game can be considered "massive" just because they sold a few thousand boxes. Is CoD an MMO? Battlefield? Counter-Strike? By the standard you draw, The Last of Us is an MMO because it has multiplayer matchmaking. Not even narius tries to label those games MMOs (but, to be fair, his definition comes not from some logic or rationale drawn from the qualities of the games, but simply from marketing hype words and definitions).
The difference in how those other folks are presented to the player (either in a persistent game world or in a lobby that creates an instance specifically for a "match") is the defining line between massively multiplayer and simply multiplayer.
Comments
You've been here since 2005 and you really believe that?
There is more interest in a wider variety of MMORPGs now than ever and no, not just because they are branching out to games that can be called MMOs but because there are more MMORPGs released and in development that people are interested in.There are more MMORPGs in development that have forum goers interest than I ever recall. Granted I came to this site one year after you but how many games were people interested in 2005 that were in development?
When I came in 2006 it was pretty much just Vanguard. Than it was Warhammer and AOC. There was minor interest in other indie games but not to the same extent as now. This year we still saw three AAA MMOs released. Wildstar released, ESO released and archeage just that I remember. We saw expansions for almost all of the surviving triple A games released and there is more of them now and we have a ton of games that seem to have a genuie following in development. More variety of MMORPGs that I see people being excited about now than I've ever seen.
I don't buy for a second that they can't survive without branching out. Atleast not because there isn't as much MMORPG news as there used to be. Maybe it could have something to do with increased competition and social media playing a bigger role when compared to gaming sites as this but I'm not sure about that either. If I had to guess I would just say they are looking for a wider audience because they can.
VOlgore since when does this site consider games like LoL MMOs? I can't remember seeing an article on LoL where it was referred to as an MMO. Random posters on thsi website don't count.
And if you mean the "Game List", that's a list of games. What's your point? Not every game there is an MMO.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Your last sentence is correct. MMOs cover MMORTS, MMOFPS, MMORPGs. But those games like Lol are neither MMORTS, MMOFPS or MMORPGs. A MMOFPS is something like Planetside. It is exactly the same concept as MMORPG but instead of an RPG you have an FPS or RTS.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
True enough, for games like LOL they are more in the class of Multiplayer Online Games, or MOG's as a broad term, which also includes games like Counterstrike etc. Like the difference between Counterstrike or BF3 etc. when played online, is just one of scaling, compared to an MMOFPS like Planetside 2, so it is also with MOBA's and other MOG's when compared to MMO's in general.
When the top line of the game list says, and i quote "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", it implies the list is not a list of any games, but MMORPGs.
And yes, LoL is in the list titled "MMORPG Gamelist" .. and if that is not "consider games like LoL MMOs", what is?
!00% agree!
mmorpg junkie since 1999
Thing is LoL or WoT are nowhere near massively. They are just normal lobby multiplayer games, exactly like Call of Duty or Starcraft is. RPG or not have nothing to do with it.
If you are looking for "MMO" that is not "MMORPG" then Planetside 1&2 are non-RPG MMO, to be exact MMOFPS and not much more.
It all does not matter though. MMO press is struggling so they will include anything and report on anything to fight for users/viewers. They will call 1v1 card games MMO (they already do) and they will report on single player games, facebook games or single player mobile games if someone at managment will decide it is good idea. They simply want to stay in business, when MMO/MMORPG market is shrinking.
Agreed
It's called "inaccurate". It happens on the Internet from time to time.
Development is taking longer and being here since 2005 I recall this site have more news on more mmo's that were either coming out or coming out soon.
In the last year we really didn't talk about a lot of mmo's. Wildstar, Archeage, ESO, and a handful of indies. Not to mention the SAME forum topics over and over and over again.
We're waiting longer and longer for, not only releases, but news.
That is where my comment stems from.
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
I had to check dates to be sure this was a new thread and not a necro of one from around the time Destiny came out.
But FYI Massively covers a number of MOBAs and other non-MMO online games and has been doing so for years "Not so Massively" column, but categorises them various as "psuedo-MMOs" (e.g. that was the head for one of their awards this year, or "MOBAs, roguelikes, MMOTCGs, and other games that aren't quite MMOs."
I guess some people really have nothing better to bitch about........ oh wait it's mmorpg.com there is always something better to bitch about lol.
Happy Holidays!
No signature, I don't have a pen
"Inaccurate" for years without a correction? "Inaccurate" not only on this site, but also massively (another big MMO site) too?
I would say this "inaccurate" is turning into "accurate" just by common usage.
"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
They have not done so yet, have they?
Plus, given the decline of classical MMORPGs, may be they should just follow massively.com .. and broaden the definitions of MMO anyway. It is not set in stone, you know.
Congrats on the successful troll thread. 5 pages, A+.
Consider the thread my present to those who like to debate (and be honest, definition of MMOs is a hot one .. whether it is me that started it or not) on the forum.
So what do you think about massively.com .. continuing broadening of the term MMORPG? Do you think it will spread to more sites (since massively is pretty big & prominent)?
many have tried that here. There is no consensus. I think it is more illuminating to just see how, on the internet, particularly big & influential sites, categorized MMOs.
So 2 sites that are including games that are not under the definition in order to offer material for the crossover segment of the audience is now common usage? I think you are over estimating the size and grasp of these two web sites. For common usage, you'd have to go to the game's player bases. And I think most people who play the games you are calling MMOs but really aren't, don't really consider them MMOs but MOBAs and FPSs etc.
Using WOT is perhaps not conducive to your argument as it contains too many contradictions that render your argument meaningless.
In the case of WoW you can in fact have several hundred players in the same place, and while battlegrounds deal with set numbers of players, it doesn't apply to the contested areas, where you can have hundreds of players fighting over them, oops, in case you didn't notice that means WoW does actually do massive PVP in a way that MOBA's and games like WOT is unable to cater to. Also, WoW is a persistent world, WOT is just a lobby game, as are 99.99999% of all MOBA's, while characters do have a degree of persistence, the world does not, as its just scenarios that are fought over, in that sense WOT has much in common to MOBA's like DOTA2 and LOL, there is no persistent world and its just about battlegrounds, which is why they are called MOBA's if in doubt perhaps its worth remembering what MO means in MOBA, and why they are not in fact, called MMOBA's
If at some point in the future these games acquire a persistent world feature, and, support more than a half dozen or so players in the same area at the same time, ideally to be called an MMO class game you should be able to play alongside at least 100 other players, as any horde player in WoW will tell you, it makes attacking Stormwind a hell of a lot more fun
So yeah, if MOBA's supported more players and had a persistent world, there might be something to the argument behind them qualifying as a MMO, unless of course, massively is somehow reduced to, more than 1 player, and persistent worlds relaxed to, battleground/arena that lasts for about 5 minutes. Probably not going to happen though
just that you are not looking does not mean that there aren't more.
Take WoT for an example .... many review sites call it a MMO. And you really have no idea what most people consider. But it is a fact that MMORPG, massively, superdata, and newszoo consider many you would like not as MMO .. MMOs.
and all you have is ... your opinion.
Well, now, wait a minute ...
Though I wouldn't, at first glance, consider giving them the "massively" word that is usually set aside for the traditional idea of an mmo(rpg or whatever) let's see what really is being considered.
Though my first mmo was an older mmo with a decent server size, AND I met quite a few people over the several years I played it, I can't rightfully say I met thousands of players. Not even hundreds if you want to count "met" as me having actual conversations with these people.
The truth about the massively (as I see it) is that circumstances are only going to have you interface with a certain amount of people over the course of your play time. Part of this has to do with where you level, your schedule, the schedule of others, etc.
So for all the "massively" that people like to tout as a prime draw for mmo's(rpg's whatever) I highly doubt that most people will attest to meeting and talking with thousands upon thousands of people. I'd find it hard to believe.
The idea is that while out in the world you"could" meet just about anyone. That's sort of the thrust of it all.
My understanding of lobby games (as they were never my taste so I don't play them) is that you will be matched with any number of the thousands of players who are also looking play. So your pool is also a great many people and you will only be matched with a subset of those people during your course of play.
Therefore the same thing is sort of achieved. In both the traditional mmo and these lobby games you will meet and play with/against a subset of a far larger or "massive" group of people.
Given that, I can easily understand why someone would consider those games as earning the "massivley" word even if the idea of community in them might take part more on some forum. At least as far as my understanding of these games go. Perhaps one can "shoot the shit" during game play, allowing these games to have more in game community.
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
This is a strange yet sad crusade you have undertaken. Unfortunately, I fear that as things unfold, you are going to end up wondering why you put so much of your time and energy into something that just never happens.
Good luck, Seldon.
"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
The different is quite distinct though, Sovrath. Otherwise, every online multiplayer game can be considered "massive" just because they sold a few thousand boxes. Is CoD an MMO? Battlefield? Counter-Strike? By the standard you draw, The Last of Us is an MMO because it has multiplayer matchmaking. Not even narius tries to label those games MMOs (but, to be fair, his definition comes not from some logic or rationale drawn from the qualities of the games, but simply from marketing hype words and definitions).
The difference in how those other folks are presented to the player (either in a persistent game world or in a lobby that creates an instance specifically for a "match") is the defining line between massively multiplayer and simply multiplayer.