MMORPG.com’s Weekly Watercooler: What’s in an Acronym? The MMO Definition Debate a Columns at MMORPG

SBFord

MMORPG.com’s Weekly Watercooler: What’s in an Acronym? The MMO Definition Debate a Columns at MMORPG.com

Let’s start a fire on a dead horse, folks. This week’s Weekly Watercooler topic is… "Should we still be arguing about what qualifies as an MMO?" To get back to basics, we first asked Portalarium’s Richard Garriott to put in his two copper. Who better than the guy often credited with inventing the term?

Read the full story here

alkarionlog

some people really can't let go

BizkitNL

Thank you, Bill, for opening that old wound that is Auto Assault. I just got over it....



Whats next......Earth & Beyond? Oh god....

sayuu

Would you call a sparrow an eagle? why not? they both have feathers, fly, and have talons.



would you serve Kool-aid and Antifreeze at your kid's parties? why not? they both are colored liquids and they both taste sweet.



these are two examples of the logic used to call games like Destiny, League of Legends, and Hearthstone MMO's.



another point made I feel needs refuting.



"Massively Multiplayer refers to the number of people playing a game, not the fact that you'll be able to give the World's Biggest Group Hug in Stormwind."



By this logic: Super Mario Bros was a MMO cause thousands of people played it at the same time! Nevermind the fact that the people playing never interacted with each other at all, or could even if they wanted to! but you could send Nintendo a picture of your highscore to get on the leaderboards. So much a MMO!




MMO's are fundamentally about the "world's biggest group hug in Stormwind" they always have been.

Blinkenn

Another point is, who's going to make these new MMORPGs that capture our attention for 3 months? Star CItizen, Crowfall, hell even Pantheon and SotA are being made, in-part, with industry veterans. All the new (kids) developers are making apps, not these massive endeavors that are MMORPGs. Even Blizzard is hiring more mobile devs.


It doesn't look good for the future of the genre, at least for the hope that something will come out of left field and hook us for 3 months, that dream keeps fading as the years go by.

Rusque

alkarionlog said:

some people really can't let go

Well, some people truly can't let it go . . . it just seems to be the people who don't want MMO to have any meaning. Humans need systematics/classification because we use it for every single thing on the planet. It's the entire reason we can even communicate ideas to one another because we've managed to assign meanings/labels to things and have created comparatives that further allow us to differentiate entire concepts with just a word or phrase. It's the reason I can say, "cheese" and you know I'm not talking about milk despite both being part of the broader dairy product family.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason the MMORPG.com staff feel some kind of way about it is because they review more than just MMO's on this site and some people give them a hard time about it. The staff should just get over it and just do the reviews anyway even if a game isn't an MMO. It's okay, really guys, just do your reviews.

Viper482

"We felt that the term "Massively" was the key. So when people debate the applications of the term MMO to a variety of game types, I still believe that is the real differentiator."

Thank you....case closed.

Nanfoodle

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

Phaserlight

Nanfoodle said:

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

I disagree.  One of the things that irks me is when people take "Massively" to refer to the world; it's the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you get people abusing the definition by going 'it's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, whee!'

"MMO" simply came to be because it's three less syllables than "MMORPG".  Etymologically the two terms are identical; people began to assign all sorts of meaning to the difference after the fact.  Practically, there is none.  I understand differentiating between MMORPG - MMORTS - MMOFPS, however to me "MMO" will always be the more casual slang for "MMORPG".

Nanfoodle

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

I disagree.  One of the things that irks me is when people take "Massively" to refer to the world; it's the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you get people abusing the definition by going 'it's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, whee!'

"MMO" simply came to be because it's three less syllables than "MMORPG".  Etymologically the two terms are identical; people began to assign all sorts of meaning to the difference after the fact.  Practically, there is none.  I understand differentiating between MMORPG - MMORTS - MMOFPS, however to me "MMO" will always be the more casual slang for "MMORPG".

When the MMO term started being used it was talking about the size of the world. If it was referring to the number of people playing, it would mean the number of people playing at one time and again you would need a massive world to make MMO be a thing. Fact, the games that started this MMO craze had massive worlds, massive amounts of people playing at one time, all online. You fall short of that, your not an MMO.

Phaserlight

Nanfoodle said:

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

I disagree.  One of the things that irks me is when people take "Massively" to refer to the world; it's the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you get people abusing the definition by going 'it's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, whee!'

"MMO" simply came to be because it's three less syllables than "MMORPG".  Etymologically the two terms are identical; people began to assign all sorts of meaning to the difference after the fact.  Practically, there is none.  I understand differentiating between MMORPG - MMORTS - MMOFPS, however to me "MMO" will always be the more casual slang for "MMORPG".

When the MMO term started being used it was talking about the size of the world. If it was referring to the number of people playing, it would mean the number of people playing at one time and again you would need a massive world to make MMO be a thing. Fact, the games that started this MMO craze had massive worlds, massive amounts of people playing at one time, all online. You fall short of that, your not an MMO.

Yes, you often do need a massive world to accommodate a massive number of players.  However, it's "Massively" - adverb, not adjective.

Nanfoodle

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

I disagree.  One of the things that irks me is when people take "Massively" to refer to the world; it's the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you get people abusing the definition by going 'it's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, whee!'

"MMO" simply came to be because it's three less syllables than "MMORPG".  Etymologically the two terms are identical; people began to assign all sorts of meaning to the difference after the fact.  Practically, there is none.  I understand differentiating between MMORPG - MMORTS - MMOFPS, however to me "MMO" will always be the more casual slang for "MMORPG".

When the MMO term started being used it was talking about the size of the world. If it was referring to the number of people playing, it would mean the number of people playing at one time and again you would need a massive world to make MMO be a thing. Fact, the games that started this MMO craze had massive worlds, massive amounts of people playing at one time, all online. You fall short of that, your not an MMO.

Yes, you often do need a massive world to accommodate a massive number of players.  However, it's "Massively" - adverb, not adjective.

It's not "often", its not an MMO if its not massive. You need a massive world to hold the massive amount of players at one time. If you have massive amounts of players all being put in small instances like GW1, you are not an MMO, you are a lobby game.

Samhael

The labels help. For example, if I know it's a MOBA, I can save myself the time of downloading it. (haven't played one I like yet)

corvas

in my opinion "Massively Multiplayer Online" needs to be looked at as one word, so let me explain myself abit, Multiplayer stands for people/players together in one area and massively stands for lots of players (whats "lots" ... well that can be a discussion for another time) and well online says enough, so for me MMO is kinda one word and i would translate MMO into => "a lot of people/players playing together online in an area" also an area might be one big area like UO or several areas connected to each other but with the means that everyone can meet each other in one spot if they feel like it like EQ2.

postlarval

Richard Garriott? That guy wouldnt know an MMO if it came up and bit him on the face.

He was only involved with UO for roughly two years of its 20-year existence, Tabula Rasa was a disaster, and Shroud of the Avatar...well...

Exactly what track record makes him an expert?

There are a lot of people more involved in the genre for longer periods of time than him.

Ask Koster, he'll know.

Iselin

Am I the only one seeing the humor in "Hey. Let's ask Richard Garriott" followed closely by the unsaid "OK. let's all now ignore everything he said."

I thought he did a great job of saying once again what was meant by the term way back when it was first used and why it continues to mean the same thing: because games that fully fit the definition are still around and are still being made.

Some other random thoughts...

About enjoying the game without needing to call it anything...

Well, yeah... of course. But that's all about playing and enjoying the game not talking about it. I can and do enjoy all kinds of music but I would sound pretty silly no matter how much I enjoy "You can't always get what you want" if I called it heavy metal or trance. And I would sound even sillier if I were a professional music critic who is supposed to have a better than average handle on the lingo and the key genre differences.

Wanting to use the term in the same old way because of nostalgia...

Not really, no. OTOH, I do think that wanting to expand its usage to apply to many other things is a sign of MMORPG starvation

About some non MMOs outdoing MMOs at some of the fundamental MMO features...

Well hell yeah. It's been happening quite often. I understand the desire to give special awards or prizes to those games when they outdo MMOs at MMO'ishness. But I don't think calling them MMOs is really the prize they're after. Sure there's overlap going both ways and some MMOs do the single player experience better than some single player games but I still see no reason why one of those would need to give up its maiden genre name... what an old-fashioned and paternalistic concept!

And sorry guys, it really is about having the world's biggest group hug in Stormwind, not about how many people own the game.

SavageHorizon

Plain and simple these new coop games calling proclaiming to be mmo need to think of a new name.

Seems to me they have taken up the mmo mantles to fight true mmo's such as WOW. They don't want to risk making a mmo similar to what an mmo should be. Instead they make these glorified lobby games with cut down mmo features and proclaim them MMOs.

Grow some balls and actually make true mmo's that do hold hundreds if not thousands of people in the same space. They can't make massive worlds because of cost and they skip most of the features that would qualify as true mmo's because of cost.

Only a fool would fall for it.

Phaserlight

Nanfoodle said:

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

Phaserlight said:

Nanfoodle said:

As long as the world is massive and you can play with many people. It can be called a MMO. Like a game you play with people driving cars on a race track not an MMO, driving cars in a open world thats large could be an MMO. MMORPG is again a different beast.

I disagree.  One of the things that irks me is when people take "Massively" to refer to the world; it's the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you get people abusing the definition by going 'it's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online, whee!'

"MMO" simply came to be because it's three less syllables than "MMORPG".  Etymologically the two terms are identical; people began to assign all sorts of meaning to the difference after the fact.  Practically, there is none.  I understand differentiating between MMORPG - MMORTS - MMOFPS, however to me "MMO" will always be the more casual slang for "MMORPG".

When the MMO term started being used it was talking about the size of the world. If it was referring to the number of people playing, it would mean the number of people playing at one time and again you would need a massive world to make MMO be a thing. Fact, the games that started this MMO craze had massive worlds, massive amounts of people playing at one time, all online. You fall short of that, your not an MMO.

Yes, you often do need a massive world to accommodate a massive number of players.  However, it's "Massively" - adverb, not adjective.

It's not "often", its not an MMO if its not massive. You need a massive world to hold the massive amount of players at one time. If you have massive amounts of players all being put in small instances like GW1, you are not an MMO, you are a lobby game.

Yes, I agree, but it's still an important distinction. GW1 isn't a MMO; it's a CORPG.

Instancing kind of goes against a game being "Massively Multiplayer" unless you potentiality have hundreds of players per instance.

However, it's very important that you remember the first "M" does not refer to the world, but the number of players interacting.  Otherwise, you will completely change the definition because it is possible to have a game where a large number of players are playing online in a huge world yet not being allowed to interact in large numbers. 

postlarval

Iselin said:

And sorry guys, it really is about having the world's biggest group hug in Stormwind, not about how many people own the game.

It ain't an MMO unless it has a cash shop. Truth.

Nanfoodle

postlarval said:

Iselin said:

And sorry guys, it really is about having the world's biggest group hug in Stormwind, not about how many people own the game.

It ain't an MMO unless it has a cash shop. Truth.




When you stub your toe, do you say cash shop? Is that the only topic you can talk about?

postlarval

Nanfoodle said:

When you stub your toe, do you say cash shop? Is that the only topic you can talk about?

Grow a sense of humor.

Maybe you can buy one in Pantheon's cash shop once it goes live. 

Nanfoodle

postlarval said:

Nanfoodle said:

When you stub your toe, do you say cash shop? Is that the only topic you can talk about?

Grow a sense of humor. 

I was, I thought what I said was funny because its touches on what is true =-) Guess it flew over your head lol

cheyane

In Everquest you had zones and people were in different zones. The world was not seamless and people were not actually playing together because they were playing in different zones. Sometimes you could be in a zone with just one group. Is that massively? Would you consider a game with many instances a world that was massive ,you wouldn't would you but a world with zones like Everquest was considered massive and it qualified as a massively online game.

How about the ability to communicate if you could speak to everyone when they were not in the same zone but you were connected through a channel that allowed people in different instances to talk to each other would that be massively?

Is there a cut off number from which you can say the world is massive like 500 and > people in a game is considered massively. 

Most of us who have played older games  have a definite idea about what massively is but the qualifications could change I guess.

postlarval

Nanfoodle said:

postlarval said:

Nanfoodle said:

When you stub your toe, do you say cash shop? Is that the only topic you can talk about?

Grow a sense of humor. 

I was, I thought what I said was funny because its touches on what is true =-) Guess it flew over your head lol

I'll be sure to purchase a Nanfoodle humor-catching net in the Pantheon cash shop soon. 

Nanfoodle

cheyane said:

In Everquest you had zones and people were in different zones. The world was not seamless and people were not actually playing together because they were playing in different zones. Sometimes you could be in a zone with just one group. Is that massively? Would you consider a game with many instances a world that was massive ,you wouldn't would you but a world with zones like Everquest was considered massive and it qualified as a massively online game.

How about the ability to communicate if you could speak to everyone when they were not in the same zone but you were connected through a channel that allowed people in different instances to talk to each other would that be massively?

Is there a cut off number from which you can say the world is massive like 500 and > people in a game is considered massively. 

Most of us who have played older games  have a definite idea about what massively is but the qualifications could change I guess.

I knew someone would go there lol. Its still a massive world because...

1. All zones are connected. You can travel to anywhere in the game and go team with anyone on your server.
2. You can talk to and trade with or mail anyone on your server and then go find said person.
3. Zones are not an instance, they are just a way to keep lag at bay. If the developers could make it seamless they would. The zone wall taken away does not change what that zone would look like, the map makes sense.
4. Often there is more then one way to get to the same place. Lobby games all start in the same place and goto x,y,z instance. When you are done, you return to that lobby.
5. You run into other people.

I could go on and on but you get the point =-)

Phaserlight

cheyane said:

In Everquest you had zones and people were in different zones. The world was not seamless and people were not actually playing together because they were playing in different zones. Sometimes you could be in a zone with just one group. Is that massively? Would you consider a game with many instances a world that was massive ,you wouldn't would you but a world with zones like Everquest was considered massive and it qualified as a massively online game.

How about the ability to communicate if you could speak to everyone when they were not in the same zone but you were connected through a channel that allowed people in different instances to talk to each other would that be massively?

Is there a cut off number from which you can say the world is massive like 500 and > people in a game is considered massively. 

Most of us who have played older games  have a definite idea about what massively is but the qualifications could change I guess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think an important difference is that in Everquest anyone could enter the same zone provided they were on the same server?

I believe it was WoW that first popularized (invented?) the use of "instancing" where you could have two people playing on the same server standing in the same spot ("dungeon") but not occupying the same physical "space".

In many ways this was good thing; less down time, a more "dramatic" experience... the thing is game designers pretty much took the idea and ran with it.

12 years later, instancing followed to its extreme logical conclusion gave us No Man's Sky! (Sorry)