Selfish but i live my own definition.Just because terms become popularized and given as factual definitions does not mean they started that way.
I have one simple rule of thumb, and i think i explained in detail in the past but i'll keep it short,the game MUST adhere to it's title.
keyword >>GAME.Not the login screen not what the server says logged in,the actual game has to PLAY like it's title declares it to play.NOBODY is joining a game for the title or the login screen,it is THE GAME and ONLY the game that matters. So a short example,if the game does NOT play like a MMO,it is not a mmo.
This guy get it !
He's not being selfish in living by his own definition. We all need to determine our own definition since somewhere along the line "the definition had changed". His short example:
If the game does NOT play like an MMO, it's not an mmo.
It's also like this:
Originally you had fuel powered ground automobiles.....Somewhere along the line it was changed to add bicycles and helicopters. So now it's up to the player to determine that a BMW car is still a fuel powered ground automobile, and a bicycle is not.
Here's where the arguments starts:
Since "the definition has changed", people refuse to except that a change happened or not well thought out.
Well, the technical definition involves a lot of players.
So while this website indicates it focuses on the same theme, why does it have to be that technical?
If it has an online presence then does it matter?
I mean you could even argue other games dont even have enough of a role playing theme to even be an mmorpg but just an mmog.
And a lot of online games without a lot simultaneous players, still allows players to chat with a lot of their friends in the same game. Even though the actual game is 'instanced' for a certain online game of a few players it still has a large social atmosphere.
And in some mmorpgs you can run around in a huge world with barely seeing any ppl due to population or design as a sand box, but in a instanced situation you might run into more people.
So the definition should be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Because then you will always have to argue over semantics.
Or they could try to be 'purists' but have less to talk about and less content for us to digest.
And its not like the website is flooded with information, so the lose definition works well as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
The only way to define the massively multiplayer it if you first define what the multiplayer limit is.
At UO's time if was what 64? What is it now? Is there even a limit to differentiate then anymore.
No, as no two players are going to have the same criteria for what MMORPG means. Defining anything is fraught with issues, which plays very well to the "anything co-op is a MMO" crowd. I stand by the fact that publishers are bothering less with even putting the word MMO in their co-op games now, they don't feel the need to any more.
When you try to define something, you so often vanish down a rabbit hole, here for most of us co-op is not MMO. That's good enough for me.
MMOFPS (Newer so some older MMO veterans are having a "wtf why" moment) and MMORPG (Has been around the longest so people think this is the only type of MMO) are BOTH sub-genres of MMOGs.
WoW - MMORPG - Raids, Heroics, Dungeons, Loot, Guild System, Character Creation, Shared game space, online-only experience, Fantasy Setting, large instance
Destiny- MMOFPS - Raids, Heroics, Dungeons, Loot, Guild System, Character Creation, Shared game space, online-only experience, Sci-Fi Setting, small instance
Both do similar things same features all of that good stuff but the difference is one has a far bigger instance than the other. I'm still waiting for somebody to explain how Destiny isn't an MMO. I said MMO, not MMORPG.
The argument over how many players per instance is stupid. Destiny isn't a WoW level of instances but people need to stop acting like its borderlands or gears. Those are co-op games with offline modes. The Multiplayer parts are tacked on to those games. Destiny was designed for an online MMO experience.
Also btw.. Bungie isn't calling Destiny an MMO, they don't want that title. None of the new games do. Even if people like myself think its an MMO. Again this is a never-ending conversation. The games are what you want it to be, but I like to point out the facts.
The facts are that Destiny and WoW have more in common than some of you want to admit for some strange reason.
Edit: Is it Online Only? Does it have the traditional MMO features listed above? Are you able to play with many people even if its 100 at a time or 20 at a time?
It's an MMO.
Putting a game into a different subset of the genre doesn't change things, there are already MMOFPS's out there that Destiny 2 can be judged alongside of, Planetside and Planetside 2 being the most obvious examples of MMOFPS's instead Destiny 2 can only be classed as a MOFPS, and not even a particularly good one because already the game has literally died on the vine, though not because it isn't an MMO, but because its just another rubbish cash shop game that emphasises corporate greed rather than gameplay.
The only way to define the massively multiplayer it if you first define what the multiplayer limit is.
At UO's time if was what 64? What is it now? Is there even a limit to differentiate then anymore.
No, as no two players are going to have the same criteria for what MMORPG means. Defining anything is fraught with issues, which plays very well to the "anything co-op is a MMO" crowd. I stand by the fact that publishers are bothering less with even putting the word MMO in their co-op games now, they don't feel the need to any more.
When you try to define something, you so often vanish down a rabbit hole, here for most of us co-op is not MMO. That's good enough for me.
That depends on how many players are involved again, the MMO definition doesn't really care what type of game it is in terms of whether its PVE cooperative gameplay, or PVP competitive style gameplay or even if its a mix of the two, you totally can have a co-op game that is an MMO if it has literally hundreds if not thousands of players, as FFXIV:ARR although there is a PVP feature, its just a bolt on that isn't really part of the rest of the game, or at least it wasn't the last time i played and i can't imagine its changed all that much, its more of a co-op game and is probably why the playerbase tends to be a good deal more friendlier and helpful, at least in my experience, than a good many other games out there. The only relevant criteria for the MMO tag is the number of players whether its from the 'low' numbers that SW:TOR has per instance of around 150 ish, to the other extreme which is Eve Online that allows thousands per instance.
The acronym defines itself. There are just people who can't tell the difference between massively multiplayer and just multiplayer or who don't care and use the term incorrectly.
It's a lot like removing the self contained part but still calling it SCUBA diving.
Post edited by Nilden on
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
The acronym defines itself. There are just people who can't tell the difference between massively multiplayer and just multiplayer or who don't care and use the term incorrectly.
It's a lot like removing the self contained part but still calling it SCUBA diving.
So, when can we drop massively and just use multiplayer then? If it is easy, at what point is a certain quantity not big enough anymore to warrant the adverb massively? 16 players vs. 10k is easy, but what about 500 players in a world? 256? And in most MMORPGs there is no way to see them or speak to them at the same time, what use is a big number then? For instance, if SWTOR only has instances with a max of 150 people it really isn't an MMORPG now is it? Not by Garriots definition at least. Thats only slightly more then survival games, and those really aren't massively with about 50/75 players.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Post edited by lahnmir on
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
The only way to define the massively multiplayer it if you first define what the multiplayer limit is.
At UO's time if was what 64? What is it now? Is there even a limit to differentiate then anymore.
No, as no two players are going to have the same criteria for what MMORPG means. Defining anything is fraught with issues, which plays very well to the "anything co-op is a MMO" crowd. I stand by the fact that publishers are bothering less with even putting the word MMO in their co-op games now, they don't feel the need to any more.
When you try to define something, you so often vanish down a rabbit hole, here for most of us co-op is not MMO. That's good enough for me.
That depends on how many players are involved again, the MMO definition doesn't really care what type of game it is in terms of whether its PVE cooperative gameplay, or PVP competitive style gameplay or even if its a mix of the two, you totally can have a co-op game that is an MMO if it has literally hundreds if not thousands of players, as FFXIV:ARR although there is a PVP feature, its just a bolt on that isn't really part of the rest of the game, or at least it wasn't the last time i played and i can't imagine its changed all that much, its more of a co-op game and is probably why the playerbase tends to be a good deal more friendlier and helpful, at least in my experience, than a good many other games out there. The only relevant criteria for the MMO tag is the number of players whether its from the 'low' numbers that SW:TOR has per instance of around 150 ish, to the other extreme which is Eve Online that allows thousands per instance.
There are grey areas, that's why definitions go down a rabbit hole. But when you make the decision to put anything that is co-op in the category MMO it just causes confusion. I agree with your examples of numbers not all having parity when it comes to Massively. But I think Bill used the term "persistent online games". To me that's anything where your character has some elements derived from the last time you played. So that's what MMORPG now means?
Lets be more precise; MMO, MMOFPS, co-op etc, it does help you get an immediate handle on what's being discussed. If the staff had done a separate co-op list we would have read it with interest, so why not do that?
The acronym defines itself. There are just people who can't tell the difference between massively multiplayer and just multiplayer or who don't care and use the term incorrectly.
It's a lot like removing the self contained part but still calling it SCUBA diving.
That would suck having that thing on all day...... I'll bet it stinks !
I'm too drunk to render an opinion but I'm with you @Iselin ;
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
As I don't believe there's much debate over the terms online game, I think the question focuses on how many players does the term "massively multiplayer" represent, and specifically where must this massive number of players present itself?
Long ago and far away, this site used a qualifier of 500 players in a persistent game world. They didn't say you had to interact with all of them at once, but you did have to be able interact with all of them in some fashion in reasonably large numbers.
I can't agree with folks who say 50 is an acceptable number for any game deemed massively multiplayer, the term massively by itself implies something on a "vast scale" by most definitions, and whatever number "vast" is, 50 isn't it.
So the simple way to solve this debate is to come to an agreement of how many players constitute vast, and define in what context this number applies.
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
A game that can support 500+ players within the same online virtual environment.
Virtual environment meaning the same virtual space that you can traverse without loading screens. If you have to go through loading screens, you are in a different virtual environment.
Note that this definition has nothing to do with gameplay - it could be an FPS, an RPG, an RTS. The definition is purely about number of people playing together. It also has nothing to do with how many people you can see on screen. Being in the same virtual environment does not mean you have to be grouped with them or directly interact with them all at the same time.
How did I arrive at this definition?
1) Break down the words "massively multiplayer online game". It has to be a game. It has to be online. It has to be multiplayer. Multiplayer means that you can interact with other people. Massively is where you get into trouble. The word applies itself to "multiplayer", so the multiplayer aspect has to be massively bigger than standard multiplayer games.
2) I did a survey of multiplayer games. The cap on standard multiplayer games tends to be around 128 (64v64) but the average is actually a lot lower. Looking at Steam, the average cap worked out at 23 players. So, what is a number that is "massively" bigger than 128? I picked 500, but massively is a subjective term. I'm happy with you selecting a different number that you consider to be massively bigger than 128.
3) When Raph Koster and Richard Garriott originally defined the term 20 years ago, they gave the same definition as me, except their player count was 250. That is because 20 years ago, 64 players was the common cap. As time and tech has moved on, the average has gone up so I decided to increase the number too. If the average number of players continues to go up over time, then so would the minimum number of players required for an MMO.
Using this definition should also match what most of us already think about online multiplayer games. Something like LotRO or WoW is clearly an MMO, whereas something like Destiny clearly isn't.
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm happy being strict with my definition and not calling them MMOs. There is nothing wrong with calling them MORPGs, that is at least accurate.
I also believe that we should genuinely celebrate the massively-multiplayer aspect of the genre, after all it is the only unique selling point and yet hardly ever utilised.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
You've never been in a massive battle in Cyrodiil
Correct, when I played it back at launch I witnessed battles of say 150 to 250 players tops, how many have you seen them reach?
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
A game that can support 500+ players within the same online virtual environment.
Virtual environment meaning the same virtual space that you can traverse without loading screens. If you have to go through loading screens, you are in a different virtual environment.
Note that this definition has nothing to do with gameplay - it could be an FPS, an RPG, an RTS. The definition is purely about number of people playing together. It also has nothing to do with how many people you can see on screen. Being in the same virtual environment does not mean you have to be grouped with them or directly interact with them all at the same time.
How did I arrive at this definition?
1) Break down the words "massively multiplayer online game". It has to be a game. It has to be online. It has to be multiplayer. Multiplayer means that you can interact with other people. Massively is where you get into trouble. The word applies itself to "multiplayer", so the multiplayer aspect has to be massively bigger than standard multiplayer games.
2) I did a survey of multiplayer games. The cap on standard multiplayer games tends to be around 128 (64v64) but the average is actually a lot lower. Looking at Steam, the average cap worked out at 23 players. So, what is a number that is "massively" bigger than 128? I picked 500, but massively is a subjective term. I'm happy with you selecting a different number that you consider to be massively bigger than 128.
3) When Raph Koster and Richard Garriott originally defined the term 20 years ago, they gave the same definition as me, except their player count was 250. That is because 20 years ago, 64 players was the common cap. As time and tech has moved on, the average has gone up so I decided to increase the number too. If the average number of players continues to go up over time, then so would the minimum number of players required for an MMO.
Using this definition should also match what most of us already think about online multiplayer games. Something like LotRO or WoW is clearly an MMO, whereas something like Destiny clearly isn't.
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm happy being strict with my definition and not calling them MMOs. There is nothing wrong with calling them MORPGs, that is at least accurate.
I also believe that we should genuinely celebrate the massively-multiplayer aspect of the genre, after all it is the only unique selling point and yet hardly ever utilised.
I like your definition and supporting reasoning behind it.
Not much different than the original one used by this site before they lost their souls and 500 in a single "space" seems reasonable for a modern standard.
I've long felt titles such as AoC, SWTOR and many others which split the player base into duplicate instances of the same "space" once hitting a limit of 75 or 100 players to not be "true" MMOs either, regardless of what other features they mimic.
When people argue that titles supporting far fewer, are lobby based and rarely let players interact meaningfully on a regular basis are "MMOs" it never seemed like an argument worth pursuing.
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
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
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
You've never been in a massive battle in Cyrodiil
Nope, could never get into ESO so the only Cyrodiil battles I saw were during beta and they topped out around 150 players.
I was under the impression that Cyrodiil had a hard cap on player numbers though? I tried googling for an answer, seems that original cap was 1800 (600 per realm) but that cap has been reduced a number of times and ZOS now refuse to answer questions on the cap.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
A game that can support 500+ players within the same online virtual environment.
Virtual environment meaning the same virtual space that you can traverse without loading screens. If you have to go through loading screens, you are in a different virtual environment.
Note that this definition has nothing to do with gameplay - it could be an FPS, an RPG, an RTS. The definition is purely about number of people playing together. It also has nothing to do with how many people you can see on screen. Being in the same virtual environment does not mean you have to be grouped with them or directly interact with them all at the same time.
How did I arrive at this definition?
1) Break down the words "massively multiplayer online game". It has to be a game. It has to be online. It has to be multiplayer. Multiplayer means that you can interact with other people. Massively is where you get into trouble. The word applies itself to "multiplayer", so the multiplayer aspect has to be massively bigger than standard multiplayer games.
2) I did a survey of multiplayer games. The cap on standard multiplayer games tends to be around 128 (64v64) but the average is actually a lot lower. Looking at Steam, the average cap worked out at 23 players. So, what is a number that is "massively" bigger than 128? I picked 500, but massively is a subjective term. I'm happy with you selecting a different number that you consider to be massively bigger than 128.
3) When Raph Koster and Richard Garriott originally defined the term 20 years ago, they gave the same definition as me, except their player count was 250. That is because 20 years ago, 64 players was the common cap. As time and tech has moved on, the average has gone up so I decided to increase the number too. If the average number of players continues to go up over time, then so would the minimum number of players required for an MMO.
Using this definition should also match what most of us already think about online multiplayer games. Something like LotRO or WoW is clearly an MMO, whereas something like Destiny clearly isn't.
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm happy being strict with my definition and not calling them MMOs. There is nothing wrong with calling them MORPGs, that is at least accurate.
I also believe that we should genuinely celebrate the massively-multiplayer aspect of the genre, after all it is the only unique selling point and yet hardly ever utilised.
I like your definition and supporting reasoning behind it.
Not much different than the original one used by this site before they lost their souls and 500 in a single "space" seems reasonable for a modern standard.
I've long felt titles such as AoC, SWTOR and many others which split the player base into duplicate instances of the same "space" once hitting a limit of 75 or 100 players to not be "true" MMOs either, regardless of what other features they mimic.
When people argue that titles supporting far fewer, are lobby based and rarely let players interact meaningfully on a regular basis are "MMOs" it never seemed like an argument worth pursuing.
I've always felt like a lot of the people who get the term wrong do so because the confuse the standard feature list of an MMORPG with the definition of MMO.
So, something like Destiny and WoW share a hell of a lot of features. Level based, quest driven, lots of loot, vertical progression, solo/group/raid, pvp and pve etc. They are damn similar on features and so naturally there is a lot of cross-appeal between the two genres. In their minds, they are both MMOs due to the similarity of features, unfortunately the similarity is from the RPG part, not from the MMO part.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
You've never been in a massive battle in Cyrodiil
Nope, could never get into ESO so the only Cyrodiil battles I saw were during beta and they topped out around 150 players.
I was under the impression that Cyrodiil had a hard cap on player numbers though? I tried googling for an answer, seems that original cap was 1800 (600 per realm) but that cap has been reduced a number of times and ZOS now refuse to answer questions on the cap.
That cap is around 600-750 now. Individual battles seldom have more than 200 though.
This is why exclusive reliance on non-instanced and non-phased concurrent possible numbers just doesn't work for me and it does nothing but lead the discussion into anal-retentive land.
There are many objections to definitions based solely on massive numbers that would immediately disqualify any megaserver tech MMO or any MMO with "before and after" zone phasing.
By the 500+ definition only the very low tech games that do not have to concern themselves with 3D-models and textures and load-balance for the sake of performance would qualify. Eve is probably the only current MMO that would fit that definition.
Even the first gen 3D MMOs had load balancing caps, rough though they may have been. I remember the so called "portal storms" in Asheron's Call. When a popular hub - typically a city - got too many players in it (and in AC that number seemed to be around 200) to the point that performance started to be seriously compromised the surplus would be teleported by the game to random other locations in the vicinity.
These days MMOS like ESO, TSW (original) or even GW2 deal with the same over-population issues automatically by generating new phases of the same area when needed. That kind of technology does absolutely nothing to destroy my sense of MMO world.
That's why to me there has to be something else that is even more significant than massive numbers since well put together instanced MMOs still feel very much like MMOs to me. In my OP I tried to describe that less quantifiable property as having the majority of the game play happen in overland zones that anyone can access at any time whether grouped or not.
I know that's not a perfect criteria either hence the "let's build..." nature of the title as opposed to "This is what it is". But most of you are not being helpful by trying yet again, to focus on nothing but numbers and then yet again, quibbling about the correct number.
Yes, I think potential maximum concurrent numbers being a "massive" number is part of it but it's not all of it since the load-balancing tech used to keep subsets of those numbers rather low on the fly do not detract from my own personal feeling that I am in an MMO virtual world in for example, ESO.
"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
Personally I feel that qualitatively there's no difference between 100 players in a giant mob or battle, and 500 players in a giant mob or battle. As a player they would feel the same to me, and higher numbers would be worse, not better. But then, I've never attended a real-life event with thousands of people because the idea of being in a massive crowd doesn't appeal to me at all.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
To me the key criteria is that a significant part of the content essential to the game play must happen in the open world where random strangers may participate or just wander by while you play. That is what makes a game feel like an MMO to me. It really doesn't matter to me whether the technical load-balancing decisions of the developers means that I have a loading screen between different parts of the world or not, nor does it matter to me if they use megaserver tech to generate multiple instances of a world chunk in 100 player (or some other number) increments. The important thing is that most of the key game play happen in those overland world areas and that the game have those in the first place.
This in my opinion describes the defining factor for whether a game is a mmo(rpg).
A lobby based game is not a mmo because the significant part of the game is not played in a massively-multiplayer environment, but instead in a smaller closed instance. Any multiplayer game can potentially link a massive amount of players and have them form instances and other interactions outside the core game, but that is not the definition of massively-multiplayer (otherwise ANY multiplayer game would be). What to call lobby based games then ? I don't know .. a good word hasn't surfaced, though those type of games have been around for 20 years at least.
Also as a side note to etymology. I am certainly no expert on that, but isn't it so that with significant changes of what a word describes, usually a new (sometimes similar) word forms with that change ?
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
You've never been in a massive battle in Cyrodiil
Nope, could never get into ESO so the only Cyrodiil battles I saw were during beta and they topped out around 150 players.
I was under the impression that Cyrodiil had a hard cap on player numbers though? I tried googling for an answer, seems that original cap was 1800 (600 per realm) but that cap has been reduced a number of times and ZOS now refuse to answer questions on the cap.
That cap is around 600-750 now. Individual battles seldom have more than 200 though.
This is why exclusive reliance on non-instanced and non-phased concurrent possible numbers just doesn't work for me and it does nothing but lead the discussion into anal-retentive land.
There are many objections to definitions based solely on massive numbers that would immediately disqualify any megaserver tech MMO or any MMO with "before and after" zone phasing.
By the 500+ definition only the very low tech games that do not have to concern themselves with 3D-models and textures and load-balance for the sake of performance would qualify. Eve is probably the only current MMO that would fit that definition.
Even the first gen 3D MMOs had load balancing caps, rough though they may have been. I remember the so called "portal storms" in Asheron's Call. When a popular hub - typically a city - got too many players in it (and in AC that number seemed to be around 200) to the point that performance started to be seriously compromised the surplus would be teleported by the game to random other locations in the vicinity.
These days MMOS like ESO, TSW (original) or even GW2 deal with the same over-population issues automatically by generating new phases of the same area when needed. That kind of technology does absolutely nothing to destroy my sense of MMO world.
That's why to me there has to be something else that is even more significant than massive numbers since well put together instanced MMOs still feel very much like MMOs to me. In my OP I tried to describe that less quantifiable property as having the majority of the game play happen in overland zones that anyone can access at any time whether grouped or not.
I know that's not a perfect criteria either hence the "let's build..." nature of the title as opposed to "This is what it is". But most of you are not being helpful by trying yet again, to focus on nothing but numbers and then yet again, quibbling about the correct number.
Yes, I think potential maximum concurrent numbers being a "massive" number is part of it but it's not all of it since the load-balancing tech used to keep subsets of those numbers rather low on the fly do not detract from my own personal feeling that I am in an MMO virtual world in for example, ESO.
well you realize that ESO developers do not consider there game an MMO by MMO standards layed out by themsleves and namely the lead dev Matt ...........
Comments
This guy get it !
He's not being selfish in living by his own definition. We all need to determine our own definition since somewhere along the line "the definition had changed". His short example:
If the game does NOT play like an MMO, it's not an mmo.
It's also like this:
Originally you had fuel powered ground automobiles.....Somewhere along the line it was changed to add bicycles and helicopters. So now it's up to the player to determine that a BMW car is still a fuel powered ground automobile, and a bicycle is not.
Here's where the arguments starts:
Since "the definition has changed", people refuse to except that a change happened or not well thought out.
LOOK NO DEEPER THAN THIS !
So while this website indicates it focuses on the same theme, why does it have to be that technical?
If it has an online presence then does it matter?
I mean you could even argue other games dont even have enough of a role playing theme to even be an mmorpg but just an mmog.
And a lot of online games without a lot simultaneous players, still allows players to chat with a lot of their friends in the same game. Even though the actual game is 'instanced' for a certain online game of a few players it still has a large social atmosphere.
And in some mmorpgs you can run around in a huge world with barely seeing any ppl due to population or design as a sand box, but in a instanced situation you might run into more people.
So the definition should be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Because then you will always have to argue over semantics.
Or they could try to be 'purists' but have less to talk about and less content for us to digest.
And its not like the website is flooded with information, so the lose definition works well as well.
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
No, as no two players are going to have the same criteria for what MMORPG means. Defining anything is fraught with issues, which plays very well to the "anything co-op is a MMO" crowd. I stand by the fact that publishers are bothering less with even putting the word MMO in their co-op games now, they don't feel the need to any more.
When you try to define something, you so often vanish down a rabbit hole, here for most of us co-op is not MMO. That's good enough for me.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
It's a lot like removing the self contained part but still calling it SCUBA diving.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/You're wrong, I'm right!
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
There are grey areas, that's why definitions go down a rabbit hole. But when you make the decision to put anything that is co-op in the category MMO it just causes confusion. I agree with your examples of numbers not all having parity when it comes to Massively. But I think Bill used the term "persistent online games". To me that's anything where your character has some elements derived from the last time you played. So that's what MMORPG now means?
Lets be more precise; MMO, MMOFPS, co-op etc, it does help you get an immediate handle on what's being discussed. If the staff had done a separate co-op list we would have read it with interest, so why not do that?
That would suck having that thing on all day...... I'll bet it stinks !
Long ago and far away, this site used a qualifier of 500 players in a persistent game world. They didn't say you had to interact with all of them at once, but you did have to be able interact with all of them in some fashion in reasonably large numbers.
I can't agree with folks who say 50 is an acceptable number for any game deemed massively multiplayer, the term massively by itself implies something on a "vast scale" by most definitions, and whatever number "vast" is, 50 isn't it.
So the simple way to solve this debate is to come to an agreement of how many players constitute vast, and define in what context this number applies.
Then the debate will be over.....
Good luck with that.
* Certified "Harbinger of Failure"
"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
A game that can support 500+ players within the same online virtual environment.
Virtual environment meaning the same virtual space that you can traverse without loading screens. If you have to go through loading screens, you are in a different virtual environment.
Note that this definition has nothing to do with gameplay - it could be an FPS, an RPG, an RTS. The definition is purely about number of people playing together. It also has nothing to do with how many people you can see on screen. Being in the same virtual environment does not mean you have to be grouped with them or directly interact with them all at the same time.
How did I arrive at this definition?
1) Break down the words "massively multiplayer online game". It has to be a game. It has to be online. It has to be multiplayer. Multiplayer means that you can interact with other people. Massively is where you get into trouble. The word applies itself to "multiplayer", so the multiplayer aspect has to be massively bigger than standard multiplayer games.
2) I did a survey of multiplayer games. The cap on standard multiplayer games tends to be around 128 (64v64) but the average is actually a lot lower. Looking at Steam, the average cap worked out at 23 players. So, what is a number that is "massively" bigger than 128? I picked 500, but massively is a subjective term. I'm happy with you selecting a different number that you consider to be massively bigger than 128.
3) When Raph Koster and Richard Garriott originally defined the term 20 years ago, they gave the same definition as me, except their player count was 250. That is because 20 years ago, 64 players was the common cap. As time and tech has moved on, the average has gone up so I decided to increase the number too. If the average number of players continues to go up over time, then so would the minimum number of players required for an MMO.
Using this definition should also match what most of us already think about online multiplayer games. Something like LotRO or WoW is clearly an MMO, whereas something like Destiny clearly isn't.
The grey area comes with games that employ heavy instancing. A game like SW:TOR has a cap of, what, 75 players per instance? So, you can never share the same virtual environment with more than 75 players, so by my definition it shouldn't be called an MMO, despite sharing most of the features it has with actual MMOs. Same thing with something like ESO - it's heavy use of instancing means you are never in the same virtual environment as 500 other players (at least, that is my impression of it, correct me if I'm wrong).
I'm happy being strict with my definition and not calling them MMOs. There is nothing wrong with calling them MORPGs, that is at least accurate.
I also believe that we should genuinely celebrate the massively-multiplayer aspect of the genre, after all it is the only unique selling point and yet hardly ever utilised.
"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
Not much different than the original one used by this site before they lost their souls and 500 in a single "space" seems reasonable for a modern standard.
I've long felt titles such as AoC, SWTOR and many others which split the player base into duplicate instances of the same "space" once hitting a limit of 75 or 100 players to not be "true" MMOs either, regardless of what other features they mimic.
When people argue that titles supporting far fewer, are lobby based and rarely let players interact meaningfully on a regular basis are "MMOs" it never seemed like an argument worth pursuing.
"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
Same thing for a best MOBAs, card based, or any other sub genre you can name.
"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
I was under the impression that Cyrodiil had a hard cap on player numbers though? I tried googling for an answer, seems that original cap was 1800 (600 per realm) but that cap has been reduced a number of times and ZOS now refuse to answer questions on the cap.
So, something like Destiny and WoW share a hell of a lot of features. Level based, quest driven, lots of loot, vertical progression, solo/group/raid, pvp and pve etc. They are damn similar on features and so naturally there is a lot of cross-appeal between the two genres. In their minds, they are both MMOs due to the similarity of features, unfortunately the similarity is from the RPG part, not from the MMO part.
This is why exclusive reliance on non-instanced and non-phased concurrent possible numbers just doesn't work for me and it does nothing but lead the discussion into anal-retentive land.
There are many objections to definitions based solely on massive numbers that would immediately disqualify any megaserver tech MMO or any MMO with "before and after" zone phasing.
By the 500+ definition only the very low tech games that do not have to concern themselves with 3D-models and textures and load-balance for the sake of performance would qualify. Eve is probably the only current MMO that would fit that definition.
Even the first gen 3D MMOs had load balancing caps, rough though they may have been. I remember the so called "portal storms" in Asheron's Call. When a popular hub - typically a city - got too many players in it (and in AC that number seemed to be around 200) to the point that performance started to be seriously compromised the surplus would be teleported by the game to random other locations in the vicinity.
These days MMOS like ESO, TSW (original) or even GW2 deal with the same over-population issues automatically by generating new phases of the same area when needed. That kind of technology does absolutely nothing to destroy my sense of MMO world.
That's why to me there has to be something else that is even more significant than massive numbers since well put together instanced MMOs still feel very much like MMOs to me. In my OP I tried to describe that less quantifiable property as having the majority of the game play happen in overland zones that anyone can access at any time whether grouped or not.
I know that's not a perfect criteria either hence the "let's build..." nature of the title as opposed to "This is what it is". But most of you are not being helpful by trying yet again, to focus on nothing but numbers and then yet again, quibbling about the correct number.
Yes, I think potential maximum concurrent numbers being a "massive" number is part of it but it's not all of it since the load-balancing tech used to keep subsets of those numbers rather low on the fly do not detract from my own personal feeling that I am in an MMO virtual world in for example, ESO.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
A lobby based game is not a mmo because the significant part of the game is not played in a massively-multiplayer environment, but instead in a smaller closed instance. Any multiplayer game can potentially link a massive amount of players and have them form instances and other interactions outside the core game, but that is not the definition of massively-multiplayer (otherwise ANY multiplayer game would be).
What to call lobby based games then ? I don't know .. a good word hasn't surfaced, though those type of games have been around for 20 years at least.
Also as a side note to etymology. I am certainly no expert on that, but isn't it so that with significant changes of what a word describes, usually a new (sometimes similar) word forms with that change ?
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0