Originally posted by Zarf42 Are semantics really that important?
Well, I think it goes beyond semantics.
Words and Labels carry certain freight. They have implicit and, often, explicit meanings. So if you say something is a MMORPG, there are immediate associations made with that term; certain expectations of what the game will have, how it will play, etc. If you call it a MMOFPS.... again... there are immediate associations made.
Same goes for any other genre or sub-genre. The terms exist because they are descriptive and provide an immediate idea of what the game is like... even before someone necessarily knows what it's about.
For example...
An Action-Adventure, and Action-RPG describe two very different types of games. The 'Action' part is consistent, but the 'RPG' and "Adventure" labels indicate very different types of games. For example, Diablo is an Action-RPG. The Legend of Zelda is an Action-Adventure.
This is why it drives me nuts when people sloppily and carelessly throw around terminology, and why it does actually matter if, for example, someone refers to Diablo/II/III as a MMORPG - because it isn't, and never has been one. It's an Action-RPG with an optional multiplayer mode. Not a "MMO-Action RPG". Just an "Action-RPG".
And before someone says "who are you to declare what genre Diablo is?" - I'm not. Blizzard is. Per their own website, Diablo, and its sequels, are all Action-RPGs. Meanwhile, WoW is a MMORPG, etc. They make that distinction for a reason, and it isn't "just semantics".
"So what? Who cares what people call them?!" you might ask. Well, I'd say everyone should and, even if they don't realize it, probably does care. Why? Because, again, terms/labels carry certain meanings/freight.
For example...
If a person sees a game on a store shelf, or on Steam or whatever, and it says its an 'Action-RPG', there's an immediate association made with that, with a certain playstyle, combat setup, etc. etc. They're more likely to think of Diablo, than WoW, or Starcraft, etc. So, they buy the game, get it installed and, upon starting it up and creating a character, find that it plays nothing like an Action-RPG. It's actually more like WoW than Diablo.
That label - "Action RPG" matters, because it implied a certain type of experience which the game, ultimately, does not deliver. The game was mis-labeled and, hence, misleading. The game the person got isn't what it was advertised as. That matters.
Words and their meanings are not so malleable that we can just twist them around to fit whatever definition we need/want them to. Yet so many people try to do just that. It's not only entirely dishonest, it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and conflict. Because, instead of discussing the merits of the game itself, these discussions often get sidetracked into debates over "whether it's a MMO or not", or whatever. How can you discuss the merits of a game when people can't even find common ground on what kind of game it is?
To argue "it's just semantics" is to not understand - or just ignore - all this.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Terms change and evolve. This is completely normal. Many/most words or terms have evolved in every language For example, "decimate" historically meant to kill a tenth of a group of people, now it means to kill a lot. When people point out that decimate 'actually' means 10% they simply come off as pedantic and inflexible (and a bit of a bore, to be honest).
Few more examples: "nice" originally meant foolish or simple-minded, "awful" meant inspiring or wonderful, "terrific" meant to inspire terror. Etc. In a purely technical sense, those last two should have kept their initial definitions. Awful - full of awe. Terrific - terror producing. But the context and meanings have changed and the world didn't implode. The terms function perfectly well as they are.
Edit: I should note that it is perfectly understandable that terms like MMORPG are evolving, considering the huge and rapid changes in technology, participation, diversity of games, etc. And also that we are creating new terms all the time to help categorise and identify sub-genres: "themepark", "lobby game", etc. More evolution.
Terms change and evolve. This is completely normal. Many/most words or terms have evolved in every language For example, "decimate" historically meant to kill a tenth of a group of people, now it means to kill a lot. When people point out that decimate 'actually' means 10% they simply come off as pedantic and inflexible (and a bit of a bore, to be honest).
Few more examples: "nice" originally meant foolish or simple-minded, "awful" meant inspiring or wonderful, "terrific" meant to inspire terror. Etc. In a purely technical sense, those last two should have kept their initial definitions. Awful - full of awe. Terrific - terror producing. But the context and meanings have changed and the world didn't implode. The terms function perfectly well as they are.
Edit: I should note that it is perfectly understandable that terms like MMORPG are evolving, considering the huge and rapid changes in technology, participation, diversity of games, etc. And also that we are creating new terms all the time to help categorise and identify sub-genres: "themepark", "lobby game", etc. More evolution.
Only, in this instance, the proposed evolution isn't a change in specific meaning. Rather, it's advocating the term is generalized to a point where it holds no real meaning. According to the definition used by the OP, MMO just means multiplayer. That's redundant, and as such isn't an appropriate evolution of the term. "Terrific" wasn't devalued; it changed in nature. Same with "awful". If we take the evolution described by the OP and applied it in the same manner to the evolution of the word "terrific," the result isn't a word meaning "of great size, amount, or intensity" (something substantially different from terror and, thus, worthy of its own unique term) but rather a term that means "terror". Which, again, is redundant. Same with "awful".
Terms change and evolve. This is completely normal. Many/most words or terms have evolved in every language For example, "decimate" historically meant to kill a tenth of a group of people, now it means to kill a lot. When people point out that decimate 'actually' means 10% they simply come off as pedantic and inflexible (and a bit of a bore, to be honest).
Few more examples: "nice" originally meant foolish or simple-minded, "awful" meant inspiring or wonderful, "terrific" meant to inspire terror. Etc. In a purely technical sense, those last two should have kept their initial definitions. Awful - full of awe. Terrific - terror producing. But the context and meanings have changed and the world didn't implode. The terms function perfectly well as they are.
Edit: I should note that it is perfectly understandable that terms like MMORPG are evolving, considering the huge and rapid changes in technology, participation, diversity of games, etc. And also that we are creating new terms all the time to help categorise and identify sub-genres: "themepark", "lobby game", etc. More evolution.
Only, in this instance, the proposed evolution isn't a change in specific meaning. Rather, it's advocating the term is generalized to a point where it holds no real meaning. According to the definition used by the OP, MMO just means multiplayer. That's redundant, and as such isn't an appropriate evolution of the term. "Terrific" wasn't devalued; it changed in nature. Same with "awful". If we take the evolution described by the OP and applied it in the same manner to the evolution of the word "terrific," the result isn't a word meaning "of great size, amount, or intensity" (something substantially different from terror and, thus, worthy of its own unique term) but rather a term that means "terror". Which, again, is redundant. Same with "awful".
But, according to the pedants, "decimate" became a more generalised term, losing it's specific meaning. And there are plenty of similar examples. All languages are replete with them. However, the examples I gave were mostly to demonstrate how language evolves, they weren't provided as analogous examples to the evolution of the term MMORPG, though I'm positive if we did a bit of general etymological exploration we could find plenty of examples of words/terms being generalised (with associated historical claims that the word is now rendered 'meaningless', I'm quite sure). But you didn't acknowledge my other point: that new specific terms are being generated all the time to deal with the rapidly changing nature of gaming. Given the nature of language and gaming, it would actually be more surprising if the words and terms weren't rapidly evolving.
We've seen a rapid diversification of games, games often borrow from a range of categories (FPS with strong RPG elements, etc), new sub-genres of games are being created. The gaming world is going through huge, rapid changes. It only makes sense the language and terminology does the same. The term MMORPG has become a more generalised category as a response to this, and I think that's perfectly fine, particularly given that we have new terms for sub-genres being created all the time: MOBAs, themeparks, sandboxes, etc, etc.
Yeah, I love Massively but they're really beginning to lose focus. Might as well just fold them back in to Joystiq as it's massively-in-name-only at this point.
Originally posted by Zarf42 Are semantics really that important?
Well, I think it goes beyond semantics.
Words and Labels carry certain freight. They have implicit and, often, explicit meanings. So if you say something is a MMORPG, there are immediate associations made with that term; certain expectations of what the game will have, how it will play, etc. If you call it a MMOFPS.... again... there are immediate associations made.
Same goes for any other genre or sub-genre. The terms exist because they are descriptive and provide an immediate idea of what the game is like... even before someone necessarily knows what it's about.
For example...
An Action-Adventure, and Action-RPG describe two very different types of games. The 'Action' part is consistent, but the 'RPG' and "Adventure" labels indicate very different types of games. For example, Diablo is an Action-RPG. The Legend of Zelda is an Action-Adventure.
This is why it drives me nuts when people sloppily and carelessly throw around terminology, and why it does actually matter if, for example, someone refers to Diablo/II/III as a MMORPG - because it isn't, and never has been one. It's an Action-RPG with an optional multiplayer mode. Not a "MMO-Action RPG". Just an "Action-RPG".
And before someone says "who are you to declare what genre Diablo is?" - I'm not. Blizzard is. Per their own website, Diablo, and its sequels, are all Action-RPGs. Meanwhile, WoW is a MMORPG, etc. They make that distinction for a reason, and it isn't "just semantics".
"So what? Who cares what people call them?!" you might ask. Well, I'd say everyone should and, even if they don't realize it, probably does care. Why? Because, again, terms/labels carry certain meanings/freight.
For example...
If a person sees a game on a store shelf, or on Steam or whatever, and it says its an 'Action-RPG', there's an immediate association made with that, with a certain playstyle, combat setup, etc. etc. They're more likely to think of Diablo, than WoW, or Starcraft, etc. So, they buy the game, get it installed and, upon starting it up and creating a character, find that it plays nothing like an Action-RPG. It's actually more like WoW than Diablo.
That label - "Action RPG" matters, because it implied a certain type of experience which the game, ultimately, does not deliver. The game was mis-labeled and, hence, misleading. The game the person got isn't what it was advertised as. That matters.
Words and their meanings are not so malleable that we can just twist them around to fit whatever definition we need/want them to. Yet so many people try to do just that. It's not only entirely dishonest, it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and conflict. Because, instead of discussing the merits of the game itself, these discussions often get sidetracked into debates over "whether it's a MMO or not", or whatever. How can you discuss the merits of a game when people can't even find common ground on what kind of game it is?
To argue "it's just semantics" is to not understand - or just ignore - all this.
*BUMP* for the idiots that are actually able to just jump right on over this too apparently.
I am pretty sure "Freight" was supposed to be "Weight" or "Baggage", but the points in this post are dead accurate otherwise.
But what does that matter? Right?
Actually, I found his points to be a bit simplistic and naive.
Originally posted by Zarf42 Are semantics really that important?
Well, I think it goes beyond semantics.
Words and Labels carry certain freight. They have implicit and, often, explicit meanings. So if you say something is a MMORPG, there are immediate associations made with that term; certain expectations of what the game will have, how it will play, etc. If you call it a MMOFPS.... again... there are immediate associations made.
Same goes for any other genre or sub-genre. The terms exist because they are descriptive and provide an immediate idea of what the game is like... even before someone necessarily knows what it's about.
For example...
An Action-Adventure, and Action-RPG describe two very different types of games. The 'Action' part is consistent, but the 'RPG' and "Adventure" labels indicate very different types of games. For example, Diablo is an Action-RPG. The Legend of Zelda is an Action-Adventure.
This is why it drives me nuts when people sloppily and carelessly throw around terminology, and why it does actually matter if, for example, someone refers to Diablo/II/III as a MMORPG - because it isn't, and never has been one. It's an Action-RPG with an optional multiplayer mode. Not a "MMO-Action RPG". Just an "Action-RPG".
And before someone says "who are you to declare what genre Diablo is?" - I'm not. Blizzard is. Per their own website, Diablo, and its sequels, are all Action-RPGs. Meanwhile, WoW is a MMORPG, etc. They make that distinction for a reason, and it isn't "just semantics".
"So what? Who cares what people call them?!" you might ask. Well, I'd say everyone should and, even if they don't realize it, probably does care. Why? Because, again, terms/labels carry certain meanings/freight.
For example...
If a person sees a game on a store shelf, or on Steam or whatever, and it says its an 'Action-RPG', there's an immediate association made with that, with a certain playstyle, combat setup, etc. etc. They're more likely to think of Diablo, than WoW, or Starcraft, etc. So, they buy the game, get it installed and, upon starting it up and creating a character, find that it plays nothing like an Action-RPG. It's actually more like WoW than Diablo.
That label - "Action RPG" matters, because it implied a certain type of experience which the game, ultimately, does not deliver. The game was mis-labeled and, hence, misleading. The game the person got isn't what it was advertised as. That matters.
Words and their meanings are not so malleable that we can just twist them around to fit whatever definition we need/want them to. Yet so many people try to do just that. It's not only entirely dishonest, it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and conflict. Because, instead of discussing the merits of the game itself, these discussions often get sidetracked into debates over "whether it's a MMO or not", or whatever. How can you discuss the merits of a game when people can't even find common ground on what kind of game it is?
To argue "it's just semantics" is to not understand - or just ignore - all this.
*BUMP* for the idiots that are actually able to just jump right on over this too apparently.
I am pretty sure "Freight" was supposed to be "Weight" or "Baggage", but the points in this post are dead accurate otherwise.
But what does that matter? Right?
Actually, I found his points to be a bit simplistic and naive.
If you want to criticize someone for being simple you wouldn't come across as a hypocrite if you use more than two words to describe it but being simple isn't necessarily a bad thing. You don't teach someone by trying to make an issue more complicated than it needs to be.
As for what is naive, I think it's naive to think people aren't mislead by the manipulation of buzz words and game descriptions by people marketing their games. That's not to say it's all intentional but I would be surprised if there were no examples of it to be found.
Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Yes we get it. I already picked up that vibe from you. Your too smart to engage those who are inferior to you, right?
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Yes we get it. I already picked up that vibe from you. Your too smart to engage those who are inferior to you, right?
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Yes we get it. I already picked up that vibe from you. Your too smart to engage those who are inferior to you, right?
"You're"
Thanks. See you can teach your inferiors afterall but I was under the impression you had better things to do than that.
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Yes we get it. I already picked up that vibe from you. Your too smart to engage those who are inferior to you, right?
"You're"
Thanks. See you can teach your inferiors afterall but I was under the impression you had better things to do than that.
This guy is full of it. He does not have better things to do (and even if he did, why correct a grammatical error if he understood your statement? ... on the internet no less?), first of all. Second of all, he has already lost any debating material he had. This is to say, he has nothing left with respect to the conversation at hand. I have seen this same tactic used when debating religious folk, their end of discussion is always, "read the book." So this turn of conversation comes as no surprise. He will not touch my reply given relativistic field equations and quantum gravity, because he can not. He will not be able to Google that information either.
*Rolls eyes* Oh dear Lord...
Anyhow, now that the moron twins have hopefully gotten that out of their system, I'd suggest that if people are so concerned they should possibly send the Massively editors an email asking about their categorisation system. They may have some solid reasons for grouping 'non MMORPG' games under the MMORPG umbrella. I doubt they are doing it capriciously.
and i quote "check out some of the MMORPG genre's winter holiday events and promotions, conveniently rounded up for you in our guide below. The list isn't exhaustive, so feel free to chime in with any we've missed that you love."
And what is included in the list? and i quote
"Destiny: "Be on the lookout for some small stocking stuffers sometime after the Holidays have come and gone."
"League of Legends: Snowdown brings sales and skins and new game modes to the biggest online game in the world."
"World of Tanks: Global maps on are ceasefire through the holidays!"
"World of Warplanes: A snowball mode has joined the game for the holiday season"
I bet they think MOBA and instanced pvp games are MMOs too.
well they are not RPGs but for sure they are MMOs since they work only through online multiplay ... i dont find it wrong at all
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Great! This is hilarious. Next thing we'll see, are these self-proclaimed intellectuals who cannot get simple English Language definitions straight, posting debates about Quantum Physics and String Theory?
Originally posted by Joeyjojoshabadu Riiight. Given the last two comments, it's clear the intellectual waters are too deep for me, so I'll get out of the pool now. I'll be over here teaching differential calculus to my cat. :-)
Great! This is hilarious. Next thing we'll see, are these self-proclaimed intellectuals who cannot get simple English Language definitions straight, posting debates about Quantum Physics and String Theory?
Now I've seen everything.
Physics makes a lot more sense than the english language.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Comments
I take it you didn't get the memo that said that more than just MMO's are covered here then
Those have got about as much chance of being MMOs as Santa Claus has of getting down my chimney.
Well, I think it goes beyond semantics.
Words and Labels carry certain freight. They have implicit and, often, explicit meanings. So if you say something is a MMORPG, there are immediate associations made with that term; certain expectations of what the game will have, how it will play, etc. If you call it a MMOFPS.... again... there are immediate associations made.
Same goes for any other genre or sub-genre. The terms exist because they are descriptive and provide an immediate idea of what the game is like... even before someone necessarily knows what it's about.
For example...
An Action-Adventure, and Action-RPG describe two very different types of games. The 'Action' part is consistent, but the 'RPG' and "Adventure" labels indicate very different types of games. For example, Diablo is an Action-RPG. The Legend of Zelda is an Action-Adventure.
This is why it drives me nuts when people sloppily and carelessly throw around terminology, and why it does actually matter if, for example, someone refers to Diablo/II/III as a MMORPG - because it isn't, and never has been one. It's an Action-RPG with an optional multiplayer mode. Not a "MMO-Action RPG". Just an "Action-RPG".
And before someone says "who are you to declare what genre Diablo is?" - I'm not. Blizzard is. Per their own website, Diablo, and its sequels, are all Action-RPGs. Meanwhile, WoW is a MMORPG, etc. They make that distinction for a reason, and it isn't "just semantics".
"So what? Who cares what people call them?!" you might ask. Well, I'd say everyone should and, even if they don't realize it, probably does care. Why? Because, again, terms/labels carry certain meanings/freight.
For example...
If a person sees a game on a store shelf, or on Steam or whatever, and it says its an 'Action-RPG', there's an immediate association made with that, with a certain playstyle, combat setup, etc. etc. They're more likely to think of Diablo, than WoW, or Starcraft, etc. So, they buy the game, get it installed and, upon starting it up and creating a character, find that it plays nothing like an Action-RPG. It's actually more like WoW than Diablo.
That label - "Action RPG" matters, because it implied a certain type of experience which the game, ultimately, does not deliver. The game was mis-labeled and, hence, misleading. The game the person got isn't what it was advertised as. That matters.
Words and their meanings are not so malleable that we can just twist them around to fit whatever definition we need/want them to. Yet so many people try to do just that. It's not only entirely dishonest, it causes a lot of unnecessary confusion and conflict. Because, instead of discussing the merits of the game itself, these discussions often get sidetracked into debates over "whether it's a MMO or not", or whatever. How can you discuss the merits of a game when people can't even find common ground on what kind of game it is?
To argue "it's just semantics" is to not understand - or just ignore - all this.
not when they are still listed under the, and i quote, "MMORPG gamelist".
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Terms change and evolve. This is completely normal. Many/most words or terms have evolved in every language For example, "decimate" historically meant to kill a tenth of a group of people, now it means to kill a lot. When people point out that decimate 'actually' means 10% they simply come off as pedantic and inflexible (and a bit of a bore, to be honest).
Few more examples: "nice" originally meant foolish or simple-minded, "awful" meant inspiring or wonderful, "terrific" meant to inspire terror. Etc. In a purely technical sense, those last two should have kept their initial definitions. Awful - full of awe. Terrific - terror producing. But the context and meanings have changed and the world didn't implode. The terms function perfectly well as they are.
Edit: I should note that it is perfectly understandable that terms like MMORPG are evolving, considering the huge and rapid changes in technology, participation, diversity of games, etc. And also that we are creating new terms all the time to help categorise and identify sub-genres: "themepark", "lobby game", etc. More evolution.
Only, in this instance, the proposed evolution isn't a change in specific meaning. Rather, it's advocating the term is generalized to a point where it holds no real meaning. According to the definition used by the OP, MMO just means multiplayer. That's redundant, and as such isn't an appropriate evolution of the term. "Terrific" wasn't devalued; it changed in nature. Same with "awful". If we take the evolution described by the OP and applied it in the same manner to the evolution of the word "terrific," the result isn't a word meaning "of great size, amount, or intensity" (something substantially different from terror and, thus, worthy of its own unique term) but rather a term that means "terror". Which, again, is redundant. Same with "awful".
But, according to the pedants, "decimate" became a more generalised term, losing it's specific meaning. And there are plenty of similar examples. All languages are replete with them. However, the examples I gave were mostly to demonstrate how language evolves, they weren't provided as analogous examples to the evolution of the term MMORPG, though I'm positive if we did a bit of general etymological exploration we could find plenty of examples of words/terms being generalised (with associated historical claims that the word is now rendered 'meaningless', I'm quite sure). But you didn't acknowledge my other point: that new specific terms are being generated all the time to deal with the rapidly changing nature of gaming. Given the nature of language and gaming, it would actually be more surprising if the words and terms weren't rapidly evolving.
We've seen a rapid diversification of games, games often borrow from a range of categories (FPS with strong RPG elements, etc), new sub-genres of games are being created. The gaming world is going through huge, rapid changes. It only makes sense the language and terminology does the same. The term MMORPG has become a more generalised category as a response to this, and I think that's perfectly fine, particularly given that we have new terms for sub-genres being created all the time: MOBAs, themeparks, sandboxes, etc, etc.
Oh give me a break they are not broadening the term they are incorrectly using the acronym.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Just like the word decimate, eh? You must be fun at parties.
Actually, I found his points to be a bit simplistic and naive.
If you want to criticize someone for being simple you wouldn't come across as a hypocrite if you use more than two words to describe it but being simple isn't necessarily a bad thing. You don't teach someone by trying to make an issue more complicated than it needs to be.
As for what is naive, I think it's naive to think people aren't mislead by the manipulation of buzz words and game descriptions by people marketing their games. That's not to say it's all intentional but I would be surprised if there were no examples of it to be found.
Yes we get it. I already picked up that vibe from you. Your too smart to engage those who are inferior to you, right?
"You're"
Thanks. See you can teach your inferiors afterall but I was under the impression you had better things to do than that.
*Rolls eyes* Oh dear Lord...
Anyhow, now that the moron twins have hopefully gotten that out of their system, I'd suggest that if people are so concerned they should possibly send the Massively editors an email asking about their categorisation system. They may have some solid reasons for grouping 'non MMORPG' games under the MMORPG umbrella. I doubt they are doing it capriciously.
well they are not RPGs but for sure they are MMOs since they work only through online multiplay ... i dont find it wrong at all
Great! This is hilarious. Next thing we'll see, are these self-proclaimed intellectuals who cannot get simple English Language definitions straight, posting debates about Quantum Physics and String Theory?
Now I've seen everything.
Physics makes a lot more sense than the english language.