That these days, debating about what is and what isn't an MMO is about as futile as debating on what is and what isn't a Sandbox.
I don't even really care whether a game like Destiny (which I've never played) is an MMO or not. But if games like that are moving in an MMO direction I'm all for it. I'm not going to call them out or shit on them, I'm going to cheer them on and hope that Destiny 2 will be more MMO like than Destiny 1
I'm hoping the big kick of awesome virtual world games like Zelda, GTA, Conan Exiles etc. etc. etc. will rub off into a resurgence of Big Open Virtual World MMORPG's because that's my preference.
I can't believe we could play games with thousands of concurrent players like UO, 20 years ago, with cpu rendered graphics and dial up modems. Today we have gigabit connections and graphics cards that have more memory than our hard drives had back then.
And look where we're at
I'm sure if they were still designing worlds like UO or SWG, we'd see more seamless AAA experiences. As the point of those designs was mostly in offering miles on miles of land to build player cities on (hence the high use of repeated generated flora/land). Today worlds are built to facilitate many different scripted events, quest based changes (ESO), as well as more handcrafted areas which brings with it higher gpu demand since there are more unique models. That's why we see so much instancing as well as phasing.
It's a trade off even today... Regardless of how far we have come, there is still a long way to go to offer the best of both of these different designs, in a seamless world without instancing and phasing.
This is a big reason for the lull IMO, I think studios know the current design has mostly run it's course. Yet to bring something more they need to upgrade the tech to offer it. I think in a few years we'll start seeing the beginning of that. In the meantime there are plenty of designs being brought forward that utilize the old school approach.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
Firstly, MMO stands for massiveLY multiplayer online, not massive. Its an important distinction, as it means the "massively" word applies to the multiplayer part of the acronym, rather than to the game as a whole.
So, "massive" is an adjective, so it modifies the next noun in the sentence (game). "massively" is an adverb, so it modifies the next noun, verb or adjective (multiplayer)
Its not about servers either, so you need to dismiss that thinking. Games like COD use centralised servers that host 100s of games simultaneously, so you might have 1000s of people on the same physical server, but they aren't actually capable of playing together because they're in their own instance of the game.
Think you didnt read my full reply at all, what i ment with one server is all people in that ONE server can interact within the game and play together without any restrictions and not like COD (I used WoT, Dota 2 and Overwatch as examples).
And if you read the full reply you see that what i mean is any game that you ONLY can play with a couple of players within one match isnt an MMO at all, look at COD, Diablo 3, WoT/WoWs, Dota 2, LoL, Overwatch, H1Z1:KOTK and any game that has a max number of players within a match.
But giving examples on which games in my eyes are MMO`s are, H1Z1:JS, Arma 3 (some Mods), WoW, DayZ, LOTRO, STO, SWTOR, The Secret World, BDO, ESO, Guardians of Ember. (keep in mind i said MMO not MMORPG)
If players really got over this, this site and the forums would be dead.
You mean we would start talking about games again instead of talking about how we're supposed to talk about games?
If games were actually interesting to debate people would be doing so.
These topics are much more fun .
Heck you're here with me right?
If you're a gamer they're fun to talk about. That's why Gamespace is more fun to read, but the social part isn't really in full swing so it's harder to discuss and interact.
I'm kind of here. I'd like to think we'll get back to talking about games again. There's still lots of room for arguing about preferences within that. For some reason, mostly a loud vocal minority, keep bringing these points up every time we try and have a discussion here that isn't EQ or DAoC.
But if we're only going to talk about DAoC and EQ and why every game after them isn't them, then I'm bored with talking only about that. I think many gamers and even mmo gamers are tired of that very simplistic and confining paradigm trying to force its way front and center all the time in some desperate attempt to stay relevant.
We constantly have these discussions now because anytime we try and discuss anything at all, like how Destiny 2 could be good for MMOs on the PC, it gets derailed by that loud cliquish niche.
Or they could have just posted how great it was Destiny 2 was going to be released on the PC, why it might be better than Destiny 1 was and predictions of what we might have to look forward to. (leaving out any tie to the MMO debate)
Most likely would have ended up like most "news" threads here, with like 7 replies and off the front page in 3 days.
They know what they are doing, tie in to a controversial subject and there's hundreds of replies and thousands of views.
Heck they even created a child thread telling us to "get over it" full well knowing the controversy and clicks it would generate.
How much different might this thread have gone without the MMO or F2P items, both sore subjects for many where few will ever yield on.
The thing to remember is in all my debates with you and others its not personal, I just enjoy verbal fencing and will resort to "tools" such as snarkiness, hyperbole, generalisations, strawmen etc to make my points. (literally, I have a lot of points)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Can someone please fill me in on what 'FFA' is an acronym for..?!
The term FFA is usually use along with PvP
It stands for "Free For All" and all it pretty much means is that when you die, anyone can loot your corpse and take all your stuff.
It generally also means that any player can attack any other player anywhere and at any time. Most FFA PvP games do, however, have some safe spots, usually in the cities where guards patrol. Once you venture out though, you're pretty much fair game.
Now just imagine people started trying to tell you FFA aka free for all meant it was free for all to play the game.
As there is already an easily understood acronym F2P it would be an unnecessary repurposing of the FFA moniker.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Can someone please fill me in on what 'FFA' is an acronym for..?!
The term FFA is usually use along with PvP
It stands for "Free For All" and all it pretty much means is that when you die, anyone can loot your corpse and take all your stuff.
It generally also means that any player can attack any other player anywhere and at any time. Most FFA PvP games do, however, have some safe spots, usually in the cities where guards patrol. Once you venture out though, you're pretty much fair game.
Now just imagine people started trying to tell you FFA aka free for all meant it was free for all to play the game.
As there is already an easily understood acronym F2P it would be an unnecessary repurposing of the FFA moniker.
The MMO debate is like that.
Yes and no. You're right, it SHOULD be easily understood. It's even fairly well outlined in Wikipedia, etc., but then if you look through the Games List here, or anywhere else for that matter (even Steam), we see stuff like Warframe, World of Tanks, Path of Exile, Vindictus, and on and on..... So it's really no wonder that people now believe that it's something different. So, yes, it should be something simple, but it does still require a re-education of the gaming community because they've been well-indoctrinated to redefine the term. If a similar effort was made to convince people that FFA meant Free for All to Play, then I'm sure it could be accomplished with time and buy-in from all media outlets.
Can someone please fill me in on what 'FFA' is an acronym for..?!
The term FFA is usually use along with PvP
It stands for "Free For All" and all it pretty much means is that when you die, anyone can loot your corpse and take all your stuff.
It generally also means that any player can attack any other player anywhere and at any time. Most FFA PvP games do, however, have some safe spots, usually in the cities where guards patrol. Once you venture out though, you're pretty much fair game.
Now just imagine people started trying to tell you FFA aka free for all meant it was free for all to play the game.
As there is already an easily understood acronym F2P it would be an unnecessary repurposing of the FFA moniker.
The MMO debate is like that.
More like playing a 1v1 game and telling people I'm playing an open world FFA PvP.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The point of that original article wasn't that the game is some kind of MMO, but that whether you think it is or not, it will have a positive impact on the PC MMO industry. So many people glommed onto that irrelevance, is it an mmo is it not - oh my, that the entire point of what it can bring to the mmo industry on PCs was lost.
Same thing. If Destiny 2 is a blockbuster, companies will make more games like Destiny 2, not more games like Planetside 2 - doesn't matter what label you put on it.
If we wanna talk about what would be good for the genre, we should be talking DayZ and survival games instead - because that genre is actually really MMO-ish in nature. For some reason, no AAA-company seems to be willing to get into that genre, even though people are quite unhappy with its current state.
State of Decay 2 was the only hope here, and now the MMO-part was replaced with 4-player coop. And that's exactly what Destiny 2 will further encourage - MMOs being replaced by coop-games.
Don't know about Horizons but Zelda has some systems and mechanics that would be absolutley awesome to see implemented in a virtual world MMORPG
Couple examples:
The entertaining mob AI: (they actually have a little bit of personality) A wolf pack behaves much like a real wolf pack
The weather system: Rain effects game play, fire (including spell type fire), climbing, visibility Wind effects game play, Temperature effects game play,
Awesome stealth mechanics that are also effected by weather.
If players really got over this, this site and the forums would be dead.
You mean we would start talking about games again instead of talking about how we're supposed to talk about games?
If games were actually interesting to debate people would be doing so.
These topics are much more fun .
Heck you're here with me right?
If you're a gamer they're fun to talk about. That's why Gamespace is more fun to read, but the social part isn't really in full swing so it's harder to discuss and interact.
I'm kind of here. I'd like to think we'll get back to talking about games again. There's still lots of room for arguing about preferences within that. For some reason, mostly a loud vocal minority, keep bringing these points up every time we try and have a discussion here that isn't EQ or DAoC.
But if we're only going to talk about DAoC and EQ and why every game after them isn't them, then I'm bored with talking only about that. I think many gamers and even mmo gamers are tired of that very simplistic and confining paradigm trying to force its way front and center all the time in some desperate attempt to stay relevant.
We constantly have these discussions now because anytime we try and discuss anything at all, like how Destiny 2 could be good for MMOs on the PC, it gets derailed by that loud cliquish niche.
Or they could have just posted how great it was Destiny 2 was going to be released on the PC, why it might be better than Destiny 1 was and predictions of what we might have to look forward to. (leaving out any tie to the MMO debate)
Most likely would have ended up like most "news" threads here, with like 7 replies and off the front page in 3 days.
They know what they are doing, tie in to a controversial subject and there's hundreds of replies and thousands of views.
Heck they even created a child thread telling us to "get over it" full well knowing the controversy and clicks it would generate.
How much different might this thread have gone without the MMO or F2P items, both sore subjects for many where few will ever yield on.
The thing to remember is in all my debates with you and others its not personal, I just enjoy verbal fencing and will resort to "tools" such as snarkiness, hyperbole, generalisations, strawmen etc to make my points. (literally, I have a lot of points)
You mean they were speculating to make the article more interesting? Why would they make it as dry and boring as possible? There is only a tie to an MMO debate because this tiny dwindling vestige keeps waving a flag and proclaiming it. There would be no debate had the attention hungry skipped the thread. It's not like they're interested in the game anyway. Like you've astutely pointed out on several occasions, sometimes the loudest complainers are those who haven't and will have no interest in ever playing the game.
The point of that original article wasn't that the game is some kind of MMO, but that whether you think it is or not, it will have a positive impact on the PC MMO industry. So many people glommed onto that irrelevance, is it an mmo is it not - oh my, that the entire point of what it can bring to the mmo industry on PCs was lost.
Even more importantly when that was pointed out bitter curmudgeon's circled the wagons and proclaimed nothing about Destiny is good for MMOs. That is why this article was written. Nearly every conversation on this site gets derailed by those comments.
Why if someone disagrees that Destiny is good for MMOs and even states reasons they and others agree on does it make them worthy of name calling and derision?
You might as well make an argument fantasy football is good for MMOs. No it isn't, nor is Destiny as neither is a MMO.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If players really got over this, this site and the forums would be dead.
You mean we would start talking about games again instead of talking about how we're supposed to talk about games?
If games were actually interesting to debate people would be doing so.
These topics are much more fun .
Heck you're here with me right?
If you're a gamer they're fun to talk about. That's why Gamespace is more fun to read, but the social part isn't really in full swing so it's harder to discuss and interact.
I'm kind of here. I'd like to think we'll get back to talking about games again. There's still lots of room for arguing about preferences within that. For some reason, mostly a loud vocal minority, keep bringing these points up every time we try and have a discussion here that isn't EQ or DAoC.
But if we're only going to talk about DAoC and EQ and why every game after them isn't them, then I'm bored with talking only about that. I think many gamers and even mmo gamers are tired of that very simplistic and confining paradigm trying to force its way front and center all the time in some desperate attempt to stay relevant.
We constantly have these discussions now because anytime we try and discuss anything at all, like how Destiny 2 could be good for MMOs on the PC, it gets derailed by that loud cliquish niche.
Or they could have just posted how great it was Destiny 2 was going to be released on the PC, why it might be better than Destiny 1 was and predictions of what we might have to look forward to. (leaving out any tie to the MMO debate)
Most likely would have ended up like most "news" threads here, with like 7 replies and off the front page in 3 days.
They know what they are doing, tie in to a controversial subject and there's hundreds of replies and thousands of views.
Heck they even created a child thread telling us to "get over it" full well knowing the controversy and clicks it would generate.
How much different might this thread have gone without the MMO or F2P items, both sore subjects for many where few will ever yield on.
The thing to remember is in all my debates with you and others its not personal, I just enjoy verbal fencing and will resort to "tools" such as snarkiness, hyperbole, generalisations, strawmen etc to make my points. (literally, I have a lot of points)
You mean they were speculating to make the article more interesting? Why would they make it as dry and boring as possible? There is only a tie to an MMO debate because this tiny dwindling vestige keeps waving a flag and proclaiming it. There would be no debate had the attention hungry skipped the thread. It's not like they're interested in the game anyway. Like you've astutely pointed out on several occasions, sometimes the loudest complainers are those who haven't and will have no interest in ever playing the game.
The point of that original article wasn't that the game is some kind of MMO, but that whether you think it is or not, it will have a positive impact on the PC MMO industry. So many people glommed onto that irrelevance, is it an mmo is it not - oh my, that the entire point of what it can bring to the mmo industry on PCs was lost.
Even more importantly when that was pointed out bitter curmudgeon's circled the wagons and proclaimed nothing about Destiny is good for MMOs. That is why this article was written. Nearly every conversation on this site gets derailed by those comments.
Why if someone disagrees that Destiny is good for MMOs and even states reasons they and others agree on does it make them worthy of name calling and derision?
You might as well make an argument fantasy football is good for MMOs. No it isn't, nor is Destiny as neither is a MMO.
It might help if you at least keep your question in the same realm as the post that spawned it...
Seems to me he's talking about people derailing the topic to argue over semantics of what is or isn't an MMO. Yet you're asking him about people actually discussing the topic...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The MMORPG genre was defined by UO, EQ ,DAOC, AO, AC and a few others ..
All these games that DEFINED the Genre and industry have one thing in common ..
They all supported Thousands of players at the SAME time in the SAME persistent world ..
Now if these games literrally defined the genre and set the standards for what an MMOPRG is .. Why would anyone think Destiny 1 or 2 is an MMO ... .. its just not .. its multi player coop game and there is nothing wrong with that ..
But Destiny 2 will have the same effect on the MMO industry as Destiny 1 did ..
None , Zero...not a factor just like its predesccessor
so .... UO------EQ------DAOC-----AO-----AC-----Destiny
one of these things is not like the others ..........Which is it ?
Torval said: If you take that to mean the genre is being held back by preconceived notions of what an MMO must be, how MMO and other genres must hybrid, and how it all must be paid; or rather (on the other side of the coin) what MMOs and their hybrids aren't allowed to be then his point makes sense. That is how I interpreted it at least.
Erm no.
The funny part is he how calls on leaving aside bickering and growing up and then proceed with more of the same self-rightneousness about how the "genre" sucks and what it should be about....
If players really got over this, this site and the forums would be dead.
You mean we would start talking about games again instead of talking about how we're supposed to talk about games?
If games were actually interesting to debate people would be doing so.
These topics are much more fun .
Heck you're here with me right?
If you're a gamer they're fun to talk about. That's why Gamespace is more fun to read, but the social part isn't really in full swing so it's harder to discuss and interact.
I'm kind of here. I'd like to think we'll get back to talking about games again. There's still lots of room for arguing about preferences within that. For some reason, mostly a loud vocal minority, keep bringing these points up every time we try and have a discussion here that isn't EQ or DAoC.
But if we're only going to talk about DAoC and EQ and why every game after them isn't them, then I'm bored with talking only about that. I think many gamers and even mmo gamers are tired of that very simplistic and confining paradigm trying to force its way front and center all the time in some desperate attempt to stay relevant.
We constantly have these discussions now because anytime we try and discuss anything at all, like how Destiny 2 could be good for MMOs on the PC, it gets derailed by that loud cliquish niche.
Or they could have just posted how great it was Destiny 2 was going to be released on the PC, why it might be better than Destiny 1 was and predictions of what we might have to look forward to. (leaving out any tie to the MMO debate)
Most likely would have ended up like most "news" threads here, with like 7 replies and off the front page in 3 days.
They know what they are doing, tie in to a controversial subject and there's hundreds of replies and thousands of views.
Heck they even created a child thread telling us to "get over it" full well knowing the controversy and clicks it would generate.
How much different might this thread have gone without the MMO or F2P items, both sore subjects for many where few will ever yield on.
The thing to remember is in all my debates with you and others its not personal, I just enjoy verbal fencing and will resort to "tools" such as snarkiness, hyperbole, generalisations, strawmen etc to make my points. (literally, I have a lot of points)
You mean they were speculating to make the article more interesting? Why would they make it as dry and boring as possible? There is only a tie to an MMO debate because this tiny dwindling vestige keeps waving a flag and proclaiming it. There would be no debate had the attention hungry skipped the thread. It's not like they're interested in the game anyway. Like you've astutely pointed out on several occasions, sometimes the loudest complainers are those who haven't and will have no interest in ever playing the game.
The point of that original article wasn't that the game is some kind of MMO, but that whether you think it is or not, it will have a positive impact on the PC MMO industry. So many people glommed onto that irrelevance, is it an mmo is it not - oh my, that the entire point of what it can bring to the mmo industry on PCs was lost.
Even more importantly when that was pointed out bitter curmudgeon's circled the wagons and proclaimed nothing about Destiny is good for MMOs. That is why this article was written. Nearly every conversation on this site gets derailed by those comments.
Why if someone disagrees that Destiny is good for MMOs and even states reasons they and others agree on does it make them worthy of name calling and derision?
You might as well make an argument fantasy football is good for MMOs. No it isn't, nor is Destiny as neither is a MMO.
It might help if you at least keep your question in the same realm as the post that spawned it...
Seems to me he's talking about people derailing the topic to argue over semantics of what is or isn't an MMO. Yet you're asking him about people actually discussing the topic...
OK for the sake of argument, let's say I am over the variable definition of MMO.
So someone, for example, says that game X is good for the 'MMO genre'. Someone starts talking about it being good for multiplayer online games, someone else says it's bad for MMORPGS. Who is on topic and who is not? If they both abbreviate to MMO what are we talking about?
No the meaning of the term is central to the discussion, and for me the term 'MMO genre' will always very specifically and very narrowly mean: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game' and nothing else.
It might help if you at least keep your question in the same realm as the post that spawned it...
Seems to me he's talking about people derailing the topic to argue over semantics of what is or isn't an MMO. Yet you're asking him about people actually discussing the topic...
OK for the sake of argument, let's say I am over the variable definition of MMO.
So someone, for example, says that game X is good for the 'MMO genre'. Someone starts talking about it being good for multiplayer online games, someone else says it's bad for MMORPGS. Who is on topic and who is not? If they both abbreviate to MMO what are we talking about?
No the meaning of the term is central to the discussion, and for me the term 'MMO genre' will always very specifically and very narrowly mean: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game' and nothing else.
When the topic is essentially saying regardless of said game being an MMO or not, I find that it will be beneficial because: insert. The entire point is to move past the semantics of it being an MMO or not. SO what is or isn't an MMO is no longer pertinent to the topic of discussion.
There are a thousand threads here to discuss that very topic, there's no need for that age old discussion to be discussed in a topic asking the reader to look past that, to understand the point that is being made. Discussing the merits of that premise is fine (why it's success won't have an impact, because reasons), going over yet again why I think it's not an MMO is /facepalm worthy. It's not much to ask of a reader to look past that... Yet people have to be difficult just cuz....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It might help if you at least keep your question in the same realm as the post that spawned it...
Seems to me he's talking about people derailing the topic to argue over semantics of what is or isn't an MMO. Yet you're asking him about people actually discussing the topic...
OK for the sake of argument, let's say I am over the variable definition of MMO.
So someone, for example, says that game X is good for the 'MMO genre'. Someone starts talking about it being good for multiplayer online games, someone else says it's bad for MMORPGS. Who is on topic and who is not? If they both abbreviate to MMO what are we talking about?
No the meaning of the term is central to the discussion, and for me the term 'MMO genre' will always very specifically and very narrowly mean: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game' and nothing else.
When the topic is essentially saying regardless of said game being an MMO or not, I find that it will be beneficial because: insert. The entire point is to move past the semantics of it being an MMO or not. SO what is or isn't an MMO is no longer pertinent to the topic of discussion.
There are a thousand threads here to discuss that very topic, there's no need for that age old discussion to be discussed in a topic asking the reader to look past that, to understand the point that is being made. Discussing the merits of that premise is fine (why it's success won't have an impact, because reasons), going over yet again why I think it's not an MMO is /facepalm worthy. It's not much to ask of a reader to look past that... Yet people have to be difficult just cuz....
Yet said game could be good for online games for <reasons>, and yet bad for MMORPGS for <reasons>. Maybe for much the same reasons. Whether it is good or bad may well depend on your sense of whether or not it is part of the 'MMO genre'.
The meaning of the term matters very much if what you regard as 'good for the MMO genre' is that which supports the growth and innovation of classic MMORPGS and not what supports the growth of other styles of online games.
The MMORPG genre was defined by UO, EQ ,DAOC, AO, AC and a few others ..
All these games that DEFINED the Genre and industry have one thing in common ..
They all supported Thousands of players at the SAME time in the SAME persistent world ..
Now if these games literrally defined the genre and set the standards for what an MMOPRG is .. Why would anyone think Destiny 1 or 2 is an MMO ... .. its just not .. its multi player coop game and there is nothing wrong with that ..
But Destiny 2 will have the same effect on the MMO industry as Destiny 1 did ..
None , Zero...not a factor just like its predesccessor
so .... UO------EQ------DAOC-----AO-----AC-----Destiny
one of these things is not like the others ..........Which is it ?
I agree completely with you and if they want to put a genre on titles like Destiny then just remove the first M, so make it MORPG.
... ohh i have a easy solution for this website ... change your name into www.MORPG.com so you can keep up the reviews on those other MORPGs as well that arent "Massively" .... hell change the name to www.MO.com then you can have reviews on all the online games.
But when www.mmorpg.com changes its coarse of reviews from only mmorpgs to all games it doesnt mean MMORPG as a genre need to take the same coarse, they didnt invent the genre at all.
Don't know about Horizons but Zelda has some systems and mechanics that would be absolutley awesome to see implemented in a virtual world MMORPG
Couple examples:
The entertaining mob AI: (they actually have a little bit of personality) A wolf pack behaves much like a real wolf pack
The weather system: Rain effects game play, fire (including spell type fire), climbing, visibility Wind effects game play, Temperature effects game play,
Awesome stealth mechanics that are also effected by weather.
Based on your logic I could go and say that many humans can become geniuses, after all many have latent abilities. But just because *there is that possibility* it doesn't mean that they are already geniuses. There is a difference between *WHAT IS* and *WHAT IT COULD BE*.
Labeling single player games as something that they're not is misleading the public. I posted this in hopes that the staff would see and correct it, but apparently they're trying to brainwash people into thinking that any game is an MMO. So much for reliable information on this site.
Sorry not wanting to sound like a ass but if you cant figure out what an MMO is maybe you should not be writing about games in general... whats so hard to figure out about what an MMO is in the first place..
I like all kinds of games, have played mmo's to first person shooters to everything in-between, I prefer sub model games but I feel they are slowly fading away, one thing I wish dev's would be more transparent about things and more honest with the player base how much is that f2p game really going to cost me if I want a good gaming experience ? and I wish companies would clamp down on cheaters and exploiters more than they do, I am playing a game now that I enjoy but cheating and exploiting is rampant.
As long as there are gamers that list of 5 will always be around and a few more, the online world of gaming is a wide brush and you will never get everyone on the same page, the diversity of online games is one thing that keeps some of us coming back, even if todays games pale in depth and content to older mmo's.
A common problem is people want things but arent prepared to do what is necessary for the thing to be possible. Eg. So many want to rule the world yet have no responsibility. People have to be more proactive in aligning their actions with their goals. This does get tied to the brainwashing that gets done which tells people what they should want (hype) or misinformation of how to achieve what people want (grind if you want fun).
Another problem is the stagnant culture that gets created in guilds that try their hardest to stay the same and so help in making each new MMO boringly similar.
Pay attention to what you want to, question what you like, don't wait to have fun that is just a carrot on a stick mentality
Comments
It's a trade off even today... Regardless of how far we have come, there is still a long way to go to offer the best of both of these different designs, in a seamless world without instancing and phasing.
This is a big reason for the lull IMO, I think studios know the current design has mostly run it's course. Yet to bring something more they need to upgrade the tech to offer it. I think in a few years we'll start seeing the beginning of that. In the meantime there are plenty of designs being brought forward that utilize the old school approach.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Think you didnt read my full reply at all, what i ment with one server is all people in that ONE server can interact within the game and play together without any restrictions and not like COD (I used WoT, Dota 2 and Overwatch as examples).
And if you read the full reply you see that what i mean is any game that you ONLY can play with a couple of players within one match isnt an MMO at all, look at COD, Diablo 3, WoT/WoWs, Dota 2, LoL, Overwatch, H1Z1:KOTK and any game that has a max number of players within a match.
But giving examples on which games in my eyes are MMO`s are, H1Z1:JS, Arma 3 (some Mods), WoW, DayZ, LOTRO, STO, SWTOR, The Secret World, BDO, ESO, Guardians of Ember. (keep in mind i said MMO not MMORPG)
Most likely would have ended up like most "news" threads here, with like 7 replies and off the front page in 3 days.
They know what they are doing, tie in to a controversial subject and there's hundreds of replies and thousands of views.
Heck they even created a child thread telling us to "get over it" full well knowing the controversy and clicks it would generate.
How much different might this thread have gone without the MMO or F2P items, both sore subjects for many where few will ever yield on.
The thing to remember is in all my debates with you and others its not personal, I just enjoy verbal fencing and will resort to "tools" such as snarkiness, hyperbole, generalisations, strawmen etc to make my points. (literally, I have a lot of points)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As there is already an easily understood acronym F2P it would be an unnecessary repurposing of the FFA moniker.
The MMO debate is like that.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Yes and no. You're right, it SHOULD be easily understood. It's even fairly well outlined in Wikipedia, etc., but then if you look through the Games List here, or anywhere else for that matter (even Steam), we see stuff like Warframe, World of Tanks, Path of Exile, Vindictus, and on and on..... So it's really no wonder that people now believe that it's something different. So, yes, it should be something simple, but it does still require a re-education of the gaming community because they've been well-indoctrinated to redefine the term. If a similar effort was made to convince people that FFA meant Free for All to Play, then I'm sure it could be accomplished with time and buy-in from all media outlets.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Quite funny to say, considering the context of your article...
I said errors, but... I had no idea Zelda and Horizon were MMOs... :O Probably because they're.. massive?
P.S.: @Kyleran We've been had all along...
If we wanna talk about what would be good for the genre, we should be talking DayZ and survival games instead - because that genre is actually really MMO-ish in nature. For some reason, no AAA-company seems to be willing to get into that genre, even though people are quite unhappy with its current state.
State of Decay 2 was the only hope here, and now the MMO-part was replaced with 4-player coop. And that's exactly what Destiny 2 will further encourage - MMOs being replaced by coop-games.
Hype train -> Reality
People aren't calling those games MMO's
Don't know about Horizons but Zelda has some systems and mechanics that would be absolutley awesome to see implemented in a virtual world MMORPG
Couple examples:
The entertaining mob AI: (they actually have a little bit of personality)
A wolf pack behaves much like a real wolf pack
The weather system:
Rain effects game play, fire (including spell type fire), climbing, visibility
Wind effects game play,
Temperature effects game play,
Awesome stealth mechanics that are also effected by weather.
etc. etc. etc.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You might as well make an argument fantasy football is good for MMOs. No it isn't, nor is Destiny as neither is a MMO.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Seems to me he's talking about people derailing the topic to argue over semantics of what is or isn't an MMO. Yet you're asking him about people actually discussing the topic...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
All these games that DEFINED the Genre and industry have one thing in common ..
They all supported Thousands of players at the SAME time in the SAME persistent world ..
Now if these games literrally defined the genre and set the standards for what an MMOPRG is .. Why would anyone think Destiny 1 or 2 is an MMO ... .. its just not .. its multi player coop game and there is nothing wrong with that ..
But Destiny 2 will have the same effect on the MMO industry as Destiny 1 did ..
None , Zero...not a factor just like its predesccessor
so .... UO------EQ------DAOC-----AO-----AC-----Destiny
one of these things is not like the others ..........Which is it ?
So someone, for example, says that game X is good for the 'MMO genre'. Someone starts talking about it being good for multiplayer online games, someone else says it's bad for MMORPGS. Who is on topic and who is not? If they both abbreviate to MMO what are we talking about?
No the meaning of the term is central to the discussion, and for me the term 'MMO genre' will always very specifically and very narrowly mean:
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Game' and nothing else.
There are a thousand threads here to discuss that very topic, there's no need for that age old discussion to be discussed in a topic asking the reader to look past that, to understand the point that is being made. Discussing the merits of that premise is fine (why it's success won't have an impact, because reasons), going over yet again why I think it's not an MMO is /facepalm worthy. It's not much to ask of a reader to look past that... Yet people have to be difficult just cuz....
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The meaning of the term matters very much if what you regard as 'good for the MMO genre' is that which supports the growth and innovation of classic MMORPGS and not what supports the growth of other styles of online games.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
... ohh i have a easy solution for this website ... change your name into www.MORPG.com so you can keep up the reviews on those other MORPGs as well that arent "Massively" .... hell change the name to www.MO.com then you can have reviews on all the online games.
But when www.mmorpg.com changes its coarse of reviews from only mmorpgs to all games it doesnt mean MMORPG as a genre need to take the same coarse, they didnt invent the genre at all.
Based on your logic I could go and say that many humans can become geniuses, after all many have latent abilities. But just because *there is that possibility* it doesn't mean that they are already geniuses. There is a difference between *WHAT IS* and *WHAT IT COULD BE*.
Labeling single player games as something that they're not is misleading the public. I posted this in hopes that the staff would see and correct it, but apparently they're trying to brainwash people into thinking that any game is an MMO. So much for reliable information on this site.
As long as there are gamers that list of 5 will always be around and a few more, the online world of gaming is a wide brush and you will never get everyone on the same page, the diversity of online games is one thing that keeps some of us coming back, even if todays games pale in depth and content to older mmo's.
People have to be more proactive in aligning their actions with their goals.
This does get tied to the brainwashing that gets done which tells people what they should want (hype) or misinformation of how to achieve what people want (grind if you want fun).
Another problem is the stagnant culture that gets created in guilds that try their hardest to stay the same and so help in making each new MMO boringly similar.
Pay attention to what you want to, question what you like, don't wait to have fun that is just a carrot on a stick mentality