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 ...........
Yes, I do realize that. But I also realize that the statement was not made in any attempt to categorize the game but rather as a marketing pitch to both, attempt to differentiate itself from WOW and to attract single player Elder Scrolls gamers.
"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
As I see it is the MMO definition depending what "massive" really means.
Almost all modern FPS games support 32 players in the same zone so that is clearly not it or it would be called "average multiplayer online".
More then that is however less common so I could accept anything below could be called a "MMO".
Then of course we have the RPG part. Roleplaying mean you play someone else and see the word through your characters eyes. That clearly means you use your characters skills (Doom is not a RPG, thanks). RPG games tend to have character progression but it is not what makes it a RPG game. You do however interact with the world in a RPG game, be that with other players or npcs and monsters.
I would say any game that clears those 2 points are a MMORPG even if a persistent world and progression certainly makes it feel more MMORPG to me, and so does at least 64 players in the same zone.
I don't think we should have too complicated rules and stuff, that just confuses people. 33+ players and RPG features is simple to understand and explain.
It is also far better then the general idea right now that is that anything that is multiplayer online is a MMO, games like Diablo just isn't that.
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 ...........
Yes, I do realize that. But I also realize that the statement was not made in any attempt to categorize the game but rather as a marketing pitch to both, attempt to differentiate itself from WOW and to attract single player Elder Scrolls gamers.
“We don’t even use the term MMO with The Elder Scrolls Online anymore,
because really it’s not,” game director Matt Firor says. “MMO was a term
coined in 1997 with Ultima Online, EverQuest, and Dark Age of Camelot –
we are not that game.”
"definitions" don't matter, i see a crap game,it is defined a CRAP game,no further definition needed. Does it really matter if it is a rpg or mmo or arpg or fps,Yahtzee,checkers,backgammon,if it is crap i won't play it,pretty simple. Most games look like 1990 technical with 2010 graphics,i'd like to see the technical design of games improved 10 fold.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
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.
Large scale battles can be nothing but a chaotic mess, but having flown in massive fleets with almost a thousand players in one action I can say there can be a majestic choreography behind them which few will experience, or appeciate.
Not for every battle, every game or even everyone, but I'm glad to have experienced it.
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
"definitions" don't matter, i see a crap game,it is defined a CRAP game,no further definition needed. Does it really matter if it is a rpg or mmo or arpg or fps,Yahtzee,checkers,backgammon,if it is crap i won't play it,pretty simple. Most games look like 1990 technical with 2010 graphics,i'd like to see the technical design of games improved 10 fold.
"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
I define massively as 1,000,000 plus on one single server.
oh look . . . no games meet that criteria . . . . . . . [sarcasm]
I solved the age-old question of the definition of an MMO. My next task, will be solving the meaning of life.
Cryomatrix
Even though you were being sarcastic you nailed the issue on this topic that is the root of the problem. You can't have a none subjective discussion about terminology when a word does not have a finite meaning and is left open to personal interpretation.
An easy way to see this is to go to a small town where the pop is below some threshold picked randomly (meaning below 300 as an example) and see what answer you get for the meaning of the word when describing an amount of people living in a city to make it that a mega city. Then go into a mega city that is 1000x the pop or more and ask that same question. You most likely would end up getting a number that is very different and much larger from the people of the populated city.
So in the end there will never be a finite answer to this question.
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.
But see, that very last qualifier that you have no issue with, is a total, line in the sand non qualifier for me.
In a virtual world I insist on one single instance of any given area, it totally ruins my immersion if there is more than one per "world."
I can't stand saying, "hey did you see the big fight in Jita last night?", only to be told, "no, you were in "Jita 11" and I was in "Jita 23".
Worse is when the guild tries to form a raid and you have members "lost" in multiple instances of the same world area.
You decry those of us who insist on specific numbers in the same public area, but you are just trying to create a definition which encompasses a game you feel is a MMORPG, whereas I tend to think its really not. (Neither did one of its creators apparently, and I agree with his reasoning)
You are also correct, very few modern games truly qualify.
DAOC does in my book, as it could hold 4000K players in a single world, though of course not all could be in the same zone at one time.
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.
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.
But see, that very last qualifier that you have no issue with, is a total, line in the sand non qualifier for me.
In a virtual world I insist on one single instance of any given area, it totally ruins my immersion if there is more than one per "world."
I can't stand saying, "hey did you see the big fight in Jita last night?", only to be told, "no, you were in "Jita 11" and I was in "Jita 23".
Worse is when the guild tries to form a raid and you have members "lost" in multiple instances of the same world area.
You decry those of us who insist on specific numbers in the same public area, but you are just trying to create a definition which encompasses a game you feel is a MMORPG, whereas I tend to think its really not. (Neither did one of its creators apparently, and I agree with his reasoning)
You are also correct, very few modern games truly qualify.
DAOC does in my book, as it could hold 4000K players in a single world, though of course not all could be in the same zone at one time.
DAoC had several servers. It may not have been Camelot 13 or Camelot 21 but it was Camelot in Guinevere or Camelot in Percival.
I find the distinction of MMOs with servers being MMOs and MMOs with one megaserver not, kind of meaningless.
And Matt's description of ESO is like I already said, an exercise in PR.
ESO walks and talks like an MMO. It clearly feels like an MMO when you play it. It passes my subjective test and that of the majority of people who have played it and have also played MMOs for the past 20 years.
And I know how much you played and liked EVE but sorry bud, it's not the only MMO
"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
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.
Cool, if Cyrodiil can handle 600-750 then I'm happy calling ESO an MMO.
As per my definition, please remember that its about number of players within the same virtual environment, not necessarily on the screen.
So, LotRO for example, pretty much all of Eriador is one single continuous zone with no loading screens. I can travel from the shire to the misty mountains without a loading screen. Now, the tech may be a bit shit, meaning it turns into a slide show if there are more than 50 people in my immediate vicinity, but the game easily handles 500+ across Eriador who are all within the same virtual environment. The same is true of a lot of MMOs - they do support massive amounts of people within the same virtual environment, but the engine can't handle them all in the same location.
Also, remember we're debating the term "massively multiplayer online game". MMO is purely about the tech limits and has nothing to do with the features. If there was a new battlefield game that supported 250 v 250 maps, I would call that an MMO too, even though it's instanced and short duration. If there was a moba that did 500v500 battles, I'd call that an MMO. A racing game that supported 500 on track, that'd be an MMO.
With that in mind, reconsider the question. Regardless of genre (RPG, FPS, RTS etc), what does it take for you to consider a game massively multiplayer? You talk about things like overland gameplay, expansive worlds, but those are things specific to MMORPGs, not MMOGs in general.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I have no idea why this winds ppl up so much. I say 500 in a persistent environment and you say 2k. The thought is the same, just a difference of scale. No need to draw swords. Lobby games are massage is some cases, but lack that persistance. This they would be excluded fro. The spirit of MMO, while still meeting a literal definition.
Most know that 'one of these things is not like the other one'. I truly believe ppl like pushing the symantic word play because it gets ppl fired up. If ppl couldn't see the odd man out in a lineup, then there would be a true need of pinning down a very specific definition.
The whole term is vague at best. What was massive in 2000 may not be massive in 2005 or 2017 but just because numbers grew over time doesn't mean that in 2000 it wasn't massive.
The words are vague and without context you all will just bicker back and forth and get no where. (A rock in your hand is massive to an ant but a pebble to a elephant)
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.
Good points, but why doesn't it change things? Also, my statement isn't about if Destiny is good or not, that's a personal opinion for the individual player and another subject.
My points are explaining what it is and how we should categorize it. A person who has never played it will look at videos and say "Oh this is a co-op looter shooter." But it's not. Its the furthest thing from that. I can explain.
I agree Destiny is more MOFPS than "MMO", One M for Multiplayer. But that's if we are using the definition some people here are using. To be honest I would also put Warfame in that category. It's not a bad categorization but not necessarily right either, especially if you look at the term MMO itself.
My point was Destiny isn't a Co-Op shooter like most people keep saying here. It's just not. CO-OP, Lobby, and MO are different types of games. Gears of War is a Co-Op Shooter. Destiny isn't a Lobby Based... that's Call of Duty. As I said it has all the features of an MMO and In a play session you might encounter over 500 people and that's based on the way the instances work. They made it so each time you load into a new instance you are around a new set of 20 or so people. It's the same thing WoW does, except when you load into a new instance you are with 100-200 new people, in turn letting you come into contact with 1000s of people in a play session.
So What do you call that? It's not instanced Co-op that's what Guild Wars 1 was.
let me remind you most everyone has UO and EQ in their top MMORPGs of all time, but if we use the definitions by most in this thread neither of those games have enough "Massive" to be called MMOs. The argument is always about a number of people in the instance. My point is if you drop that "M" all these games are just MOG at the root. Massively is a marketing term that people won't let go.
Destiny and WoW have a lot in common. The only difference is WoW has bigger instances.
Also Massively needs to be defined. According to Google, "Massively: on a vast scale"
Destiny has about 5 worlds that have big enough maps that qualify it as vast.
Destiny has many of the exact same features as other MMOs...WoW included. The only difference is the instance size. But again it's not like you are with the same 20 people each time. There are thousands playing with you simultaneously
So look at the term-MOG
Multiplayer-denoting a video game designed for or involving several players. Online -controlled by or connected to another computer or to a network. Game
All MOGs have to be this or it's not an MOG. My post was about 2 types of MOGs. mo"RPG", and mo"FPS". My point is WoW is a MORPG and Destiny is an MOFPS. No, Destiny has not instanced the same way as planetside but its more of an "MMO" than planetside is.
Multiplayer is the word people are really debating not Massive. "HOW MULTIPLAYER IS IT?" Is the real conversation. There are types of multiplayer.
Online Co-Op: 2-4 Players per online instance (Diablo, Borderlands, Gears) Lobby Multiplayer: 8-20 Players per lobby (COD, Overwatch, Warframe, MOBAS) Shared World Online: 20-x Players per online instance shared space, no lobby (Destiny, ESO, SWTOR, WoW)
PS2 and Destiny are both special cases. Ps2 is a Lobby based game that can hold large amounts of Players in one Lobby. Destiny is a Shared World game with small instances.
"Massively" - "on a vast scale": Also a Late 90s Early 2000's Buzzword that sold a ton of games. Sort of like today with "Open World" or Survival".
MMO Features: Raids, Dungeons, Guilds, Loot, Character Progression, Character Customization, Global/Local Chat, Dailies, Heroics, INSTANCES etc etc etc.
You cant call -only- games like WoW MMOs simply because they reach the top end part of the term. What has happened is, Games like Destiny exist on the bottom end of the term. They are still both MMOs. Just different sized instances. ESO is also like this.. the same thing but the instance size is smaller than WoW.
Destiny->ESO->WoW.. All MOGs with different instance sizes. Only when you get rid of the buzzword do you start to understand this. These games are MOGs with different instance sizes.
They all share the same exact features so no COD or PS2 or freaking Gears doesn't qualify. You only say Planetside 2 because it's an online shooter with a big instance. Its still lobby based. It's COD with way more players per map. You cant just go to the next zone, you pick a map to play on with your lobby. Destiny has zones you can visit and explore at your own pace. Also, Destiny, WoW, and ESO separate their "lobby-ness" from the main game.
It's called PVP.
Again I think the word "massively" is too subjective to be a definite factor in MOGs moving forward and we need to look at the word multiplayer since its more based on facts and there are several types.
Post edited by klash2def on
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
Also Massively needs to be defined. According to Google, "Massively: on a vast scale"
Destiny has about 5 worlds that have big enough maps that qualify it as vast.
Just picking up on one minor thing, but an important one in the context of this discussion.
The word "massively" is an adverb and applies itself to the word multiplayer, not to the game part of the definition.
So, Destiny being massive is completely irrelevant, to be classed as a massively multiplayer game, it is the multiplayer component that needs to be massive. Given that Destiny caps at 16 players, it is not massively multiplayer, it is just standard multiplayer. This is exactly why the devs of Destiny have always explicitly said that their game is not an MMO - because it isn't.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
The whole term is vague at best. What was massive in 2000 may not be massive in 2005 or 2017 but just because numbers grew over time doesn't mean that in 2000 it wasn't massive.
The words are vague and without context you all will just bicker back and forth and get no where. (A rock in your hand is massive to an ant but a pebble to a elephant)
Continue on chasing your tails.
Growing numbers? Hearthstone a 1v1 game was listed as a MMO by superdata. Is the argument that two is massive compared to one? Wait that doesn't work one is not multiplayer...
When you move the goal posts far enough everything is a goal.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
The whole term is vague at best. What was massive in 2000 may not be massive in 2005 or 2017 but just because numbers grew over time doesn't mean that in 2000 it wasn't massive.
The words are vague and without context you all will just bicker back and forth and get no where. (A rock in your hand is massive to an ant but a pebble to a elephant)
Continue on chasing your tails.
Growing numbers? Hearthstone a 1v1 game was listed as a MMO by superdata. Is the argument that two is massive compared to one? Wait that doesn't work one is not multiplayer...
When you move the goal posts far enough everything is a goal.
Massive.....
And you use 1v1.
Are you that dumb or just being obtuse and ignoring all the other 1v1 matches going on simultaenously?
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
I understand everything you are saying here and all points are valid. 1 thing. you haven't played Destiny.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
I understand everything you are saying here and all points are valid. 1 thing. you haven't played Destiny.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
Provide specifics.
Generally speaking all games are games and are the same.
I get the same enjoyment out of board games, video games, and card games.
Are they all the same?
Or do we want to go into specifics and show how they are all similiar (game) but have differences (board game vs video game...deck of cards around a table vs digital cards on a computer.....)
And then start looking at how marketing has blurred the meaning so any game falls in every category on Steam and sites like it.
Also Massively needs to be defined. According to Google, "Massively: on a vast scale"
Destiny has about 5 worlds that have big enough maps that qualify it as vast.
Just picking up on one minor thing, but an important one in the context of this discussion.
The word "massively" is an adverb and applies itself to the word multiplayer, not to the game part of the definition.
I disagree, you are right its an adverb but it applies itself to the entire term.
Massively Multiplayer Online Game
Massively Multiplayer - describing players Massive Online-Game - describing game space
To me, if you drop massive the games are still the same. people are stuck on that word because it's vague and subjective in the context of how it's used.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
I understand everything you are saying here and all points are valid. 1 thing. you haven't played Destiny.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
Provide specifics.
Generally speaking all games are games and are the same.
I get the same enjoyment out of board games, video games, and card games.
Are they all the same?
Or do we want to go into specifics and show how they are all similiar (game) but have differences (board game vs video game...deck of cards around a table vs digital cards on a computer.....)
And then start looking at how marketing has blurred the meaning so any game falls in every category on Steam and sites like it.
Please Scroll up I did provide specifics but I'm not writing all of that again it was like 3 posts back.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
I understand everything you are saying here and all points are valid. 1 thing. you haven't played Destiny.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
Whilst I haven't played Destiny, I have played other standard online multiplayer RPGs and shooters and the difference is night and day to me.
The same happened to me in SW:TOR when I played that. Feature-wise it is very similar to most MMORPGs - it has quests, raids, dungeons, loot etc - but the focus on solo and small group gameplay, segregating the community into instances made a massive difference to me. It didn't feel like an MMORPG at all.
If you aren't into community building, socialising or don't enjoy large scale events then you wouldn't notice the difference. I am into those things and I can only get them from actual MMOs.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
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.
See this is what I'm talking about. "MMO Part"? Let's unpack that. MMO- Massively Multiplayer Online.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
Destiny and WoW are both multiplayer online games, yes.
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs. I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs. I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs. I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs. I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
I understand everything you are saying here and all points are valid. 1 thing. you haven't played Destiny.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
Whilst I haven't played Destiny, I have played other standard online multiplayer RPGs and shooters and the difference is night and day to me.
The same happened to me in SW:TOR when I played that. Feature-wise it is very similar to most MMORPGs - it has quests, raids, dungeons, loot etc - but the focus on solo and small group gameplay, segregating the community into instances made a massive difference to me. It didn't feel like an MMORPG at all.
If you aren't into community building, socialising or don't enjoy large scale events then you wouldn't notice the difference. I am into those things and I can only get them from actual MMOs.
IDK what you are assuming about me but again go play Destiny. It does not matter what standard online multi-shooter you have played. Destiny is a different thing from other online shooters. Its the only one that has the features of games like WoW. Also, who says there isn't Community Building, Socialising, or large scale events? Hell, I even joined a Roleplay Clan. Yes in Destiny 1 and 2. You are right about one thing, its instanced. But most MMOs are instanced. the difference is some have Large Instances some have smaller Instances. Large Salad vs Small Salad.. both are still salads. SWTOR has a single player focus, where Destiny has the option to go single player. It still is a Multiplayer focused game. Even WoW added solo story content. It doesn't make it less "MMO"
Again, my advice is to stop assuming what it is and try it for yourself. You'd be surprised.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"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.
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Almost all modern FPS games support 32 players in the same zone so that is clearly not it or it would be called "average multiplayer online".
More then that is however less common so I could accept anything below could be called a "MMO".
Then of course we have the RPG part. Roleplaying mean you play someone else and see the word through your characters eyes. That clearly means you use your characters skills (Doom is not a RPG, thanks). RPG games tend to have character progression but it is not what makes it a RPG game. You do however interact with the world in a RPG game, be that with other players or npcs and monsters.
I would say any game that clears those 2 points are a MMORPG even if a persistent world and progression certainly makes it feel more MMORPG to me, and so does at least 64 players in the same zone.
I don't think we should have too complicated rules and stuff, that just confuses people. 33+ players and RPG features is simple to understand and explain.
It is also far better then the general idea right now that is that anything that is multiplayer online is a MMO, games like Diablo just isn't that.
...you're welcome.
The End.
Does it really matter if it is a rpg or mmo or arpg or fps,Yahtzee,checkers,backgammon,if it is crap i won't play it,pretty simple.
Most games look like 1990 technical with 2010 graphics,i'd like to see the technical design of games improved 10 fold.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not for every battle, every game or even everyone, but I'm glad to have experienced it.
"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
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
An easy way to see this is to go to a small town where the pop is below some threshold picked randomly (meaning below 300 as an example) and see what answer you get for the meaning of the word when describing an amount of people living in a city to make it that a mega city. Then go into a mega city that is 1000x the pop or more and ask that same question. You most likely would end up getting a number that is very different and much larger from the people of the populated city.
So in the end there will never be a finite answer to this question.
In a virtual world I insist on one single instance of any given area, it totally ruins my immersion if there is more than one per "world."
I can't stand saying, "hey did you see the big fight in Jita last night?", only to be told, "no, you were in "Jita 11" and I was in "Jita 23".
Worse is when the guild tries to form a raid and you have members "lost" in multiple instances of the same world area.
You decry those of us who insist on specific numbers in the same public area, but you are just trying to create a definition which encompasses a game you feel is a MMORPG, whereas I tend to think its really not. (Neither did one of its creators apparently, and I agree with his reasoning)
You are also correct, very few modern games truly qualify.
DAOC does in my book, as it could hold 4000K players in a single world, though of course not all could be in the same zone at one time.
"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 find the distinction of MMOs with servers being MMOs and MMOs with one megaserver not, kind of meaningless.
And Matt's description of ESO is like I already said, an exercise in PR.
ESO walks and talks like an MMO. It clearly feels like an MMO when you play it. It passes my subjective test and that of the majority of people who have played it and have also played MMOs for the past 20 years.
And I know how much you played and liked EVE but sorry bud, it's not the only MMO
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
As per my definition, please remember that its about number of players within the same virtual environment, not necessarily on the screen.
So, LotRO for example, pretty much all of Eriador is one single continuous zone with no loading screens. I can travel from the shire to the misty mountains without a loading screen. Now, the tech may be a bit shit, meaning it turns into a slide show if there are more than 50 people in my immediate vicinity, but the game easily handles 500+ across Eriador who are all within the same virtual environment. The same is true of a lot of MMOs - they do support massive amounts of people within the same virtual environment, but the engine can't handle them all in the same location.
Also, remember we're debating the term "massively multiplayer online game". MMO is purely about the tech limits and has nothing to do with the features. If there was a new battlefield game that supported 250 v 250 maps, I would call that an MMO too, even though it's instanced and short duration. If there was a moba that did 500v500 battles, I'd call that an MMO. A racing game that supported 500 on track, that'd be an MMO.
With that in mind, reconsider the question. Regardless of genre (RPG, FPS, RTS etc), what does it take for you to consider a game massively multiplayer? You talk about things like overland gameplay, expansive worlds, but those are things specific to MMORPGs, not MMOGs in general.
Most know that 'one of these things is not like the other one'. I truly believe ppl like pushing the symantic word play because it gets ppl fired up. If ppl couldn't see the odd man out in a lineup, then there would be a true need of pinning down a very specific definition.
I self identify as a monkey.
M = multuplayer
0 = online
G = game
What word are people having difficulty with?
The whole term is vague at best. What was massive in 2000 may not be massive in 2005 or 2017 but just because numbers grew over time doesn't mean that in 2000 it wasn't massive.
The words are vague and without context you all will just bicker back and forth and get no where. (A rock in your hand is massive to an ant but a pebble to a elephant)
Continue on chasing your tails.
My points are explaining what it is and how we should categorize it. A person who has never played it will look at videos and say "Oh this is a co-op looter shooter." But it's not. Its the furthest thing from that. I can explain.
I agree Destiny is more MOFPS than "MMO", One M for Multiplayer. But that's if we are using the definition some people here are using. To be honest I would also put Warfame in that category. It's not a bad categorization but not necessarily right either, especially if you look at the term MMO itself.
My point was Destiny isn't a Co-Op shooter like most people keep saying here. It's just not. CO-OP, Lobby, and MO are different types of games. Gears of War is a Co-Op Shooter. Destiny isn't a Lobby Based... that's Call of Duty. As I said it has all the features of an MMO and In a play session you might encounter over 500 people and that's based on the way the instances work. They made it so each time you load into a new instance you are around a new set of 20 or so people. It's the same thing WoW does, except when you load into a new instance you are with 100-200 new people, in turn letting you come into contact with 1000s of people in a play session.
So What do you call that? It's not instanced Co-op that's what Guild Wars 1 was.
let me remind you most everyone has UO and EQ in their top MMORPGs of all time, but if we use the definitions by most in this thread neither of those games have enough "Massive" to be called MMOs. The argument is always about a number of people in the instance. My point is if you drop that "M" all these games are just MOG at the root. Massively is a marketing term that people won't let go.
Destiny and WoW have a lot in common. The only difference is WoW has bigger instances.
Also Massively needs to be defined. According to Google, "Massively: on a vast scale"
Destiny has about 5 worlds that have big enough maps that qualify it as vast.
Destiny has many of the exact same features as other MMOs...WoW included. The only difference is the instance size. But again it's not like you are with the same 20 people each time. There are thousands playing with you simultaneously
So look at the term-MOG
Multiplayer-denoting a video game designed for or involving several players.
Online -controlled by or connected to another computer or to a network.
Game
All MOGs have to be this or it's not an MOG. My post was about 2 types of MOGs. mo"RPG", and mo"FPS". My point is WoW is a MORPG and Destiny is an MOFPS. No, Destiny has not instanced the same way as planetside but its more of an "MMO" than planetside is.
Multiplayer is the word people are really debating not Massive. "HOW MULTIPLAYER IS IT?" Is the real conversation. There are types of multiplayer.
Online Co-Op: 2-4 Players per online instance (Diablo, Borderlands, Gears)
Lobby Multiplayer: 8-20 Players per lobby (COD, Overwatch, Warframe, MOBAS)
Shared World Online: 20-x Players per online instance shared space, no lobby
(Destiny, ESO, SWTOR, WoW)
PS2 and Destiny are both special cases. Ps2 is a Lobby based game that can hold large amounts of Players in one Lobby. Destiny is a Shared World game with small instances.
"Massively" - "on a vast scale": Also a Late 90s Early 2000's Buzzword that sold a ton of games. Sort of like today with "Open World" or Survival".
MMO Features: Raids, Dungeons, Guilds, Loot, Character Progression, Character Customization, Global/Local Chat, Dailies, Heroics, INSTANCES etc etc etc.
You cant call -only- games like WoW MMOs simply because they reach the top end part of the term. What has happened is, Games like Destiny exist on the bottom end of the term. They are still both MMOs. Just different sized instances. ESO is also like this.. the same thing but the instance size is smaller than WoW.
Destiny->ESO->WoW.. All MOGs with different instance sizes. Only when you get rid of the buzzword do you start to understand this. These games are MOGs with different instance sizes.
They all share the same exact features so no COD or PS2 or freaking Gears doesn't qualify. You only say Planetside 2 because it's an online shooter with a big instance. Its still lobby based. It's COD with way more players per map. You cant just go to the next zone, you pick a map to play on with your lobby. Destiny has zones you can visit and explore at your own pace. Also, Destiny, WoW, and ESO separate their "lobby-ness" from the main game.
It's called PVP.
Again I think the word "massively" is too subjective to be a definite factor in MOGs moving forward and we need to look at the word multiplayer since its more based on facts and there are several types.
"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.
Drop Massively.
MO
Are Destiny and WoW the same now yes or no?
We have to get rid of the buzzword "Massively" Because 1. its super subjective and 2. people are trying to separate games that do the same exact thing based on that word alone when it really turned into a buzzword just like Open World, Sandbox or Survival has.
The reality is, these games are the same just with differently sized instances.
A Large Salad and a Small Salad are both salads. I don't see how people are confused about this.
"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.
The word "massively" is an adverb and applies itself to the word multiplayer, not to the game part of the definition.
So, Destiny being massive is completely irrelevant, to be classed as a massively multiplayer game, it is the multiplayer component that needs to be massive. Given that Destiny caps at 16 players, it is not massively multiplayer, it is just standard multiplayer. This is exactly why the devs of Destiny have always explicitly said that their game is not an MMO - because it isn't.
When you move the goal posts far enough everything is a goal.
"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/And you use 1v1.
Are you that dumb or just being obtuse and ignoring all the other 1v1 matches going on simultaenously?
Are they the same? No.
The massively part is important, but it's only important depending on your playstyle. For example, I will never play Destiny, it holds no interest for me at all.....because it's not massively multiplayer. If it was massively multiplayer, I would probably have tried it. The main differences are scale and community / social. I love being surrounded by 1000s of people, I love interacting with them, I love forming online communities. That is why the "massively" part is really important to me, as without it you're just left with a sub-standard RPG - like Destiny.
What you need to do is separate features (the RPG / FPS bit) with the multiplayer bit (MMO).
For you, the question seems to be "Does this game have the features I like?". That's fine. For me, the question is two-fold: "Does the game have the features I like, and how many people can I enjoy them with?".
I'll try to explain my reasoning. I like RPGs, and there are certain features I look for.
I like single player RPGs.
I like split-screen multiplayer RPGs.
I don't like coop online multiplayer RPGs.
I don't like regular online multiplayer RPGs.
I like massively multiplayer online RPGs.
You are telling me that "massively" is completely irrelevant, I'm telling you it's not, due to my preferences in playstyle. Therefore whilst you are happy to drop the term, I am not because it still has a meaning and is still important.
Likewise, I don't like shooters so very rarely play them. However, I will play MMO shooters, because they offer something that is impossible to find elsewhere - the scale.
Play it then get back to me and you will see why I say its exactly like wow but with differently sized instances. Destiny is everything you think it's not and its based on bad information. Again I don't get into the cash shop Drama, or if its a good vs a bad game that's subjective but I can say for certain as a game that it does exactly what wow does just smaller instances.
"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.
Generally speaking all games are games and are the same.
I get the same enjoyment out of board games, video games, and card games.
Are they all the same?
Or do we want to go into specifics and show how they are all similiar (game) but have differences (board game vs video game...deck of cards around a table vs digital cards on a computer.....)
And then start looking at how marketing has blurred the meaning so any game falls in every category on Steam and sites like it.
Massively Multiplayer Online Game
Massively Multiplayer - describing players
Massive Online-Game - describing game space
To me, if you drop massive the games are still the same. people are stuck on that word because it's vague and subjective in the context of how it's used.
"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.
"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.
The same happened to me in SW:TOR when I played that. Feature-wise it is very similar to most MMORPGs - it has quests, raids, dungeons, loot etc - but the focus on solo and small group gameplay, segregating the community into instances made a massive difference to me. It didn't feel like an MMORPG at all.
If you aren't into community building, socialising or don't enjoy large scale events then you wouldn't notice the difference. I am into those things and I can only get them from actual MMOs.
Again, my advice is to stop assuming what it is and try it for yourself. You'd be surprised.
"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.