So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's all a matter of perception, imo. You can look at dictionary definitions but everything is open to interpretation. So ask different sources and you're get different explanations. Society as a whole can't agree on one thing 100%. Every person, business, organization has their own interpretation based on their past experience and current agenda. Looking for universal absolute definitions just ends in running around in circles.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".
Ambiguous communication neither creates fun nor avoids rigidity. Communication itself is a transfer of information, ambiguous information is imprecise information, and that's not a positive. That's how misinformation gets legitimized. In fact, case in point: THIS EXACT SITUATION.
Hell, folks have literally died over miscommunications and ambiguity. In this specific instance, there's not a good case to be made that we should be ambiguous. We're discussing communicating clearly to one another and having clear definitions of terms, which needs precision to be clear.
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".
Well, you can fight the good fight if you want to but I strongly suspect you are going to die on this hill. Not enough people care, I doubt it's really something careing about, and it's not like we are talking medicine or sending a man to mars.
It's video games.
I would offer that if mmorpg's were huge and there was a constant influx of new games then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there aren't enough games coming to market the term is being used for games that seem "associated" with the term. No surprise there to be honest.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So think of it this way, if a massive amount of people access online poker yet no one has ever offered that online poker is an mmo there must be other criteria that also play into the decision.
And again, it doesn't matter what we say here. If in 5 years people start calling online poker an mmo then "it is what it is."
Sorry but people can stomp and shout and jump and gnash their teeth all they want.
Some games are being called mmo's and it seems that only a few people have issue with it.
What does this mean?
That in a few years online poker will be an mmo!
Well, that's my point: there's not set criteria. Everyone took the ball and, as soon as the floodgates opened, ran in different directions. Hence, the lack of clarity and consistency.
It's rendered the term meaningless in the sense that it's better served with a term we already have (hence why MMO was ever coined in the first place to separate a specific sort of multiplayer).
Except you're not going to get that. You want things to be as you see them but that's just not how life works.
Maybe, that "term we already have" will no longer be used and "mmo" will be the new term?
See what I'm saying? you should be excited, you are witnessing the changing of a term right in front of your eyes!
That's history!
I doubt etymologists focus on this particular term.
If there were any consistency to it, it'd be acceptable. There isn't. You talk of making the world the way one wants as if the start of this thing wasn't literally some marketing team doing the same. That's neither here nor there, because it's equally applicable to both sides of the discussion (and since it was the evolution stance that originally tried to alter an accepted meaning, they're more guilty of that than even the traditionalists).
Does their have to be consistency? As far as I'm aware all language has been plagued by inconsistency.
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
There's nothing that says we passively accept such inconsistent usage. Again, this wasn't a natural evolution akin to the creation of slang terms like "ain't," it was a targeted and conscious effort by a specific group within the industry.
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would argue that language has always been affected by specific groups. Whether it's a marketing team, a religious institution or the king.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
Again, none of those things means we should passively accept all "effects".
Well, you can fight the good fight if you want to but I strongly suspect you are going to die on this hill. Not enough people care, I doubt it's really something careing about, and it's not like we are talking medicine or sending a man to mars.
It's video games.
I would offer that if mmorpg's were huge and there was a constant influx of new games then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there aren't enough games coming to market the term is being used for games that seem "associated" with the term. No surprise there to be honest.
We're not fighting fights. We're posting opinions and stuff on a specific interest forum that happens to be specifically interested with this term.
I've never understood why folks want to act as if things being discussed aren't worthy of discussion. If they weren't, the discussion would die. That's called the free market of ideas in action. But we're all guilty of "why are we discussing this?" on something in our lives.
I've never understood why folks want to act as if things being discussed aren't worthy of discussion. If they weren't, the discussion would die. That's called the free market of ideas in action. But we're all guilty of "why are we discussing this?" on something in our lives.
I think you are taking that too literally.
I'm not saying you can't discuss it and I'm certainly not saying we are all fighting.
I am saying that no matter what people may want as far as this topic is concerned, it's really not going to add up to much for those who want to keep the term "pure."
Given what we've seen, you just aren't going to get what you want. It's just "not that important."
I can tell you that when I started playing video games, as an adult, I certainly didn't care what things were called or that there were aspects of one game into others.
You could have called the original Doom a role playing game and I would have said "sure, great, whatever."
The term mmorpg (well, it's really an initialism) was coined by a particular person in the industry. Had other types of online games been available at the time he "could" have used it as a blanket term or "could" have even created a different way to explain it all.
Now that "those" types of games aren't as common developers want to capitalize on mmorpg for their "evolved" games.
It feels a bit too nerdy to me. I bet if we walked up to joe schmo on the street who played World of Warcraft for a year and told him about the argument that he would shrug his shoulders and say "sure, whatever."
Even on Steam, when I buy games, I see fps/rpg etc and if the game doesn't look like something I'd like, even though it carries the rpg moniker I just hit "next."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well no, of course not. But if you walked into Blizzard studios? Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.
MMORPG.com is not a street in a city. It's a specific stop for specific topics.
Destiny is MMO. 3 is massive. Chess players are athletes. Literally means figuratively. Pizza is vegetable. Wyverns are dragons. Pokemon is NOT animal blood sport. The moon is a planet >>> https://youtu.be/8RMOYhpQkzo?t=321
What is right? What is wrong? Who knows? Who cares?
Well no, of course not. But if you walked into Blizzard studios? Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.
MMORPG.com is not a street in a city. It's a specific stop for specific topics.
I bet if I walked into Blizzard Studios I'd get a wide variety of thoughts on what an mmorpg was, what it currently is and what it will someday "be."
There is a difference between the layman or in this case "the player" having their opinions and the opinions of people who actively engage in the development of video games.
It reminds me of my freshman year of college where a Masters degree candidate presented a "piece of music."
I got into a discussion with him saying that " it wasn't music ."
Well, yadda. yadda, yadda, 8 years of music education later I can say that he was right and it was music. But that took me being exposed to the entirety of known musical knowledge, the evolution of western music and a bit of exposure to eastern music to come to that realization.
My perspective had drastically changed and my understanding had significantly broadened.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Well no, of course not. But if you walked into Blizzard studios? Hell yes you'd get an opinion on what an MMO is, and I don't think it'd be as uniform as you seem to imply.
MMORPG.com is not a street in a city. It's a specific stop for specific topics.
I bet if I walked into Blizzard Studios I'd get a wide variety of thoughts on what an mmorpg was, what it currently is and what it will someday "be."
There is a difference between the layman or in this case "the player" having their opinions and the opinions of people who actively engage in the development of video games.
It reminds me of my freshman year of college where a Masters degree candidate presented a "piece of music."
I got into a discussion with him saying that " it wasn't music ."
Well, yadda. yadda, yadda, 8 years of music education later I can say that he was right and it was music. But that took me being exposed to the entirety of known musical knowledge, the evolution of western music and a bit of exposure to eastern music to come to that realization.
My perspective had drastically changed and my understanding had significantly broadened.
Agreed, but I don't agree that means anyone should acquiesce the ignorance of the masses who aren't as involved or as knowledgeable about a topic. Surely anyone who sees what's going on in America right now can agree with that.
Of course, then you get folks trying to gaslight their own "new" definition as "the" definition, and it's usually replete with ambiguity and inconsistencies. Such definitions are poor, and aren't necessarily indicative of the way the industry sees it, specifically not at an individual employee level.
Man I love playin me some Massively Multiplayer Online, which apparently is short hand for any non-single player game these days. Now I'm off to download my favorite bands new phonograph album from Amazon.
Make sure you get the 78 RPM version... that's still the best,
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Destiny is not an MMO, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, there's nothing massive about destiny, it's an online shooter nothing else, no one calls CS:GO or CoD or Battlefield or any other type of online shooter an mmo, because they're not, they're looby games that you can play online with other players. Same goes for LoL or Dota , they're all online game and millions of player play them, but they're not coined has mmo's because they're not mmo's they're mobas a completly different type of game.
The term MMO was created to specifically refer games that had huge worlds or areas that the entire server population shares, games like WoW or EQ or DaoC or SWG or other real MMORPGs. Destiny is an online multiplayer game with RPG elements, not an MMO, and I would be thankful if everyone stopped referring to it as an MMO just for the sake of making it more "appealing" to a certain crowd, that has absolutely no interest in the type of game Destiny is.
The first M is MassiveLY not Massive. Just correcting that statementh
Developers and websites (like this one) are listing games as 'MMOs' simply because there are no 'MO' categories or websites. Look at Steam, do you see an 'Online Multiplayer' section? Nope, but you do see a 'Massively Multiplayer' section. How many 'Online Multiplayer' websites do you know of? None, because there are none.
To most people, 'MMOs' are a genre, which is utterly retarded. RPGs are a genre, shooters are a genre, 'Massively Multiplayer' is not a freaking genre. Platforms like Steam and websites like this one are confusing the hell out of people, and I'm pretty sure it's done on purpose.
I disagree. MMO is a genre. RPG is a subgenres of MMOs like FPS or can be. Those can also be subgenres of MO games and single player games. Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS where as WoW is a MMORPG. Both are MMOs.
Now compare Planetside 2 and Destiny 2. Both are FPS but two different genre. One is a MMo the other a MO game.
See this is why I came up with a new term to describe these games that more specific and less vague like the term MMO is which ca be exploited by marketers.
Mods here banned me for using the term because they said it cause confusion.
The term was SCMOG Which stands for Soft Cap Multiplayer Online Game.
Softcap since all games have a limit on the number of players but some games have a soft floating cap limit that allow massively multiplayer interaction in the same gameplay Game space. These are the traditional MMO games.
HCMOG Which stands for Hard Cap Multiplayer Online Game. These are games that have a hard cap to the number of players, anything beyond it would be game breaking. For example Halo 1 was 4 player multiplayer hard cap. Suddenly changing that to 115 players would break the gameplay for something it was never built for. Same with other multiplayer games like Overwatched and League of Legend. They all ha e multiplayer but it's at a fixed hard cap setting for gameplay design. These would be the traditional MO games.
Man I love playin me some Massively Multiplayer Online, which apparently is short hand for any non-single player game these days. Now I'm off to download my favorite bands new phonograph album from Amazon.
Why do you think the game needs multiplayer?
All it needs is a hoppin' subreddit page. You can't play together at all, but you can share your stories and screenshots of you playing by yourself with a MASSIVE community of folks online! Add a "Daily Screenshot" thread so you check off that "Dailies" box, though! VERY important.
Developers and websites (like this one) are listing games as 'MMOs' simply because there are no 'MO' categories or websites. Look at Steam, do you see an 'Online Multiplayer' section? Nope, but you do see a 'Massively Multiplayer' section. How many 'Online Multiplayer' websites do you know of? None, because there are none.
To most people, 'MMOs' are a genre, which is utterly retarded. RPGs are a genre, shooters are a genre, 'Massively Multiplayer' is not a freaking genre. Platforms like Steam and websites like this one are confusing the hell out of people, and I'm pretty sure it's done on purpose.
I disagree. MMO is a genre. RPG is a subgenres of MMOs like FPS or can be. Those can also be subgenres of MO games and single player games. Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS where as WoW is a MMORPG. Both are MMOs.
Now compare Planetside 2 and Destiny 2. Both are FPS but two different genre. One is a MMo the other a MO game.
You think RPG is a subgenres of MMO's. Didn't RPG's come first. Unless I am mistaken from what you are saying.
I think you can look at it both ways. MMORPGs are a subgenre of RPGs and MMOs.
Developers and websites (like this one) are listing games as 'MMOs' simply because there are no 'MO' categories or websites. Look at Steam, do you see an 'Online Multiplayer' section? Nope, but you do see a 'Massively Multiplayer' section. How many 'Online Multiplayer' websites do you know of? None, because there are none.
To most people, 'MMOs' are a genre, which is utterly retarded. RPGs are a genre, shooters are a genre, 'Massively Multiplayer' is not a freaking genre. Platforms like Steam and websites like this one are confusing the hell out of people, and I'm pretty sure it's done on purpose.
I disagree. MMO is a genre. RPG is a subgenres of MMOs like FPS or can be. Those can also be subgenres of MO games and single player games. Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS where as WoW is a MMORPG. Both are MMOs.
Now compare Planetside 2 and Destiny 2. Both are FPS but two different genre. One is a MMo the other a MO game.
You think RPG is a subgenres of MMO's. Didn't RPG's come first. Unless I am mistaken from what you are saying.
I think you can look at it both ways. MMORPGs are a subgenre of RPGs and MMOs.
I mean I look at both MMO's and RPG's as genres. I mean the first RPG I would say is Dungeons and Dragons and that came out before the first MMO. I don't even know if MMO's would exist as we know them without Dungeons and Dragons. Now I don't know what the first RPG video game was but even if it was a MMO I would still say that MMO's would be a sub genre of RPG if anything.
What I meant was, I'm not sure there's a reason to place priority over one or the other. The question: is an MMORPG an RPG first, or an MMO first? Doesn't seem to need an answer, though I'll admit genres don't work this way in music ("classic" is the subgenre in "classic rock").
Incidentally, if I was trying to pose the system in a parallel to music, RPG would be the "genre" and MMO would be the "subgenre", I would think. RPG can be used as a stand-alone term and we know the gameplay experience we're getting. MMO merely modifies the underlying game genre it's attached to by way of a specific kind of multiplayer to be included (I guess I should say: modified ).
Comments
Heck, in upstate new york "soda" is called pop. And on some places it's actually called "coke" no matter what type of soda it is.
If said "sourdough" to you you would say "... it's the best damn bread in the world next to Rye..." (right? RIGHT?!?!?)
but in Alaska it doesn't mean bread at all.
I would say, given that i'm no professional in the study of language, that the only consistent thing about language is it follows the path of least resistance. Whatever is more easily adapted, understood and used is what it becomes.
Remember, "Aweful" now "Awful" used to mean that something inspired Awe. Now it means something horrible. Rubbers were those little boots that you had a heck of a time pulling on over your shoes.
etc, etc.
You aren't going to get consistency. Sorry.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Again, I refer back to my socialism/social democrats example. There's a reason precision has a positive connotation and ambiguity doesn't.
I would also argue that "precision" can also become a hop, skip and a jump to rigid and unyielding.
And those aren't positive. Also not fun at parties.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Ambiguous communication neither creates fun nor avoids rigidity. Communication itself is a transfer of information, ambiguous information is imprecise information, and that's not a positive. That's how misinformation gets legitimized. In fact, case in point: THIS EXACT SITUATION.
Hell, folks have literally died over miscommunications and ambiguity. In this specific instance, there's not a good case to be made that we should be ambiguous. We're discussing communicating clearly to one another and having clear definitions of terms, which needs precision to be clear.
It's video games.
I would offer that if mmorpg's were huge and there was a constant influx of new games then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there aren't enough games coming to market the term is being used for games that seem "associated" with the term. No surprise there to be honest.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I've never understood why folks want to act as if things being discussed aren't worthy of discussion. If they weren't, the discussion would die. That's called the free market of ideas in action.
I'm not saying you can't discuss it and I'm certainly not saying we are all fighting.
I am saying that no matter what people may want as far as this topic is concerned, it's really not going to add up to much for those who want to keep the term "pure."
Given what we've seen, you just aren't going to get what you want. It's just "not that important."
I can tell you that when I started playing video games, as an adult, I certainly didn't care what things were called or that there were aspects of one game into others.
You could have called the original Doom a role playing game and I would have said "sure, great, whatever."
The term mmorpg (well, it's really an initialism) was coined by a particular person in the industry. Had other types of online games been available at the time he "could" have used it as a blanket term or "could" have even created a different way to explain it all.
Now that "those" types of games aren't as common developers want to capitalize on mmorpg for their "evolved" games.
It feels a bit too nerdy to me. I bet if we walked up to joe schmo on the street who played World of Warcraft for a year and told him about the argument that he would shrug his shoulders and say "sure, whatever."
Even on Steam, when I buy games, I see fps/rpg etc and if the game doesn't look like something I'd like, even though it carries the rpg moniker I just hit "next."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
MMORPG.com is not a street in a city. It's a specific stop for specific topics.
3 is massive.
Chess players are athletes.
Literally means figuratively.
Pizza is vegetable.
Wyverns are dragons.
Pokemon is NOT animal blood sport.
The moon is a planet >>> https://youtu.be/8RMOYhpQkzo?t=321
What is right? What is wrong? Who knows? Who cares?
I'm a cyborg!
There is a difference between the layman or in this case "the player" having their opinions and the opinions of people who actively engage in the development of video games.
It reminds me of my freshman year of college where a Masters degree candidate presented a "piece of music."
I got into a discussion with him saying that " it wasn't music ."
Well, yadda. yadda, yadda, 8 years of music education later I can say that he was right and it was music. But that took me being exposed to the entirety of known musical knowledge, the evolution of western music and a bit of exposure to eastern music to come to that realization.
My perspective had drastically changed and my understanding had significantly broadened.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Of course, then you get folks trying to gaslight their own "new" definition as "the" definition, and it's usually replete with ambiguity and inconsistencies. Such definitions are poor, and aren't necessarily indicative of the way the industry sees it, specifically not at an individual employee level.
https://youtu.be/8RMOYhpQkzo?t=321
@Pher0cious
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS where as WoW is a MMORPG. Both are MMOs.
Now compare Planetside 2 and Destiny 2. Both are FPS but two different genre. One is a MMo the other a MO game.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Mods here banned me for using the term because they said it cause confusion.
The term was SCMOG
Which stands for Soft Cap Multiplayer Online Game.
Softcap since all games have a limit on the number of players but some games have a soft floating cap limit that allow massively multiplayer interaction in the same gameplay Game space. These are the traditional MMO games.
HCMOG
Which stands for Hard Cap Multiplayer Online Game.
These are games that have a hard cap to the number of players, anything beyond it would be game breaking. For example Halo 1 was 4 player multiplayer hard cap. Suddenly changing that to 115 players would break the gameplay for something it was never built for. Same with other multiplayer games like Overwatched and League of Legend. They all ha e multiplayer but it's at a fixed hard cap setting for gameplay design. These would be the traditional MO games.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
All it needs is a hoppin' subreddit page. You can't play together at all, but you can share your stories and screenshots of you playing by yourself with a MASSIVE community of folks online! Add a "Daily Screenshot" thread so you check off that "Dailies" box, though! VERY important.
Incidentally, if I was trying to pose the system in a parallel to music, RPG would be the "genre" and MMO would be the "subgenre", I would think. RPG can be used as a stand-alone term and we know the gameplay experience we're getting. MMO merely modifies the underlying game genre it's attached to by way of a specific kind of multiplayer to be included (I guess I should say: modified