I am a traditionalist about the use of MMO myself, but we have the appellations to use with it, Action MMO, MMO Shooter etc. Any of us can get lazy and just use MMO, I have done it myself.
It doesn't really matter though. With MMO being more commonly used, there have been dozens of arguments here about the definition of 'massive'. Take that away and people will start arguing about the word 'multiplayer'.....fast forward until their arguing about the word 'game'.
In the 60s one bought music on "records", made of vinyl and largely in two formats, 45s and LPs aka albums.
Late 60s early 70s brought us 8 track tapes. No one called them records, they were 8 tracks despite some similarites such as being made of plastic, and delivering album content.
Early 70s and we has cassette tapes. Despite similarities to 8 tracks, no one mis labeled them, nor called them "records."
Next up, compact discs. Hey, made of plastic, scratched like records, but funny, no one called them "compact records," " or even albums really, they were CDs.
Then came Blue Ray discs, mostly a movie format, or but looked just like CDs....yet no one called them such, they didn't come up with a catchy initialism, like BRD, nor were they records.
So then the dawn of the digital music age, ipods and other devices, played music just like a "record" player, or CD player, or cassette player, but no, none of those names were repurposed, would have caused confusion with clearly understood real world items. I do believe they still use the terms album or LP perhaps?
Even if someone says "Victrola" many people know it as a record player that is still sold today, but I don't believe you'll find that label applied to many devices that don't play vinyl.
So why should we yield or evolve the terms MMO and MMORPG?
The definition of "massively" has never been set in stone but the games of the early days sort of set the standards which while not as popular today still exist as first defined, unlike the "lorries" analogy.
CORPG applies to many games people try to define as MMOs, and now we may need a new term for these larger battle royal games, perhaps MMOBA?
Just don't call them MMORPGs, some ground can never be yielded.
This is very wrong. I work in the music industry. I am 100% sure people still refer to albums and singles as records. I am 1000% sure.
"Record" does not mean the actual Vinyl today.. I mean sometimes it does, really depends on the context of the conversation, but mostly when people say "My new record is coming out" they are talking about the new song or the new album. Its called the "Record Business" still even though RECORDS are not really being sold except in niche stores. Labels aren't putting money up for "RECORDS" like they did in the 50s 60s and 70s. Everything is digital. We still call it The Record Business. The term came from people recording music on onto and selling records. It evolved.
The word "Record" has been repurposed and that happened years ago. It means something else now but still in the parameters of what it used to mean.
Sort of reminds me of another term.... hm.
You may be old but you should check your sources. People still use the term RECORDs in the industry but it does not refer to ONLY vinyl. We are mostly talking about a new song or new album.
I cant count how many times ive heard an artist say "my new record is on Spotify"
.
No, if the music industry attempted to label CDs as records in an attempt to attract buyers, that analogy would hold. But that's not the case. The context matters.
wth are you talking about NO? No to what? What did I say here that's a NO? Also what analogy? I didn't make an analogy I told the truth. What I said is fact.
CDs, Records, Tapes, MP3s, Streaming = MY NEW RECORD IS COMING OUT.
Please, stay in your lane. Use another example. It doesn't work.
CDs are the same thing as Vinyl, it's just another format of the song and album. Record back in the day used to mean VINYL but today it just means new music coming out via a Record Label.
Please don't try to argue with me about this. I know for a fact I am 100% right. There is no argument with this. I'm speaking from over a decade of working professionally.
Considering my argument had nothing to do with saying using another term in that context is wrong or even matters, I'd say you might wanna reread my response.
EDIT- also, pro tip, but immediately spazzing on anyone who quotes you but disagrees is guaranteed to get people to NOT lend any credence to your argument. Breathe, then type.
First off you read your own response to what I said. Now read my response to your response.
You were wrong now take the L and sit down. You do this often to me, you usually lose your point and try to change the narrative. I don't know when you are going to get that it does not work on me. I don't care bro. FOH and stay in your lane. Still waiting for you to inform me of what you were saying "No" to on my post. You tried to say my analogy didn't hold when I didn't give an analogy at all, I stated a fact.
I don't spaz. You have never seen me spaz. I respond just like everyone else here.
Then if you actually grasped my response, you'd know I don't give a fuck what you call a record. Or CD. Or Vinyl. Because you're not doing it as a marketing fucking ploy to get folks to buy MP3 or CDs.
And yea, using caps and insulting is spazzing. Now YOU sit the fuck down.
EIDT- you literally included "sounds like another term" to reference this thread. Are you seriously trying to state you weren't presenting the situations as analogous despite the clear comment indicating otherwise??
"oh you mad Bill O Reily!" *points and laughs* - Cam'ron (Rapper)
Wow, look at this beautiful L.
Oh, continuing with the insults, with even less actual substance to this newest post?
I'll take it but it's good memory more than anything else. I remember that poll. There was a point these forums this last fall that nariusseldon was creating a new topic rehashing this same general debate every couple days.
OK everyone, take a step back please. @Scot has the right of it: This isn't government policy or religious doctrine or any one of a thousand topics of any import in this world.
Let's stick to the topic please or, if it's just too much, back out of the thread gracefully.
I'll take it but it's good memory more than anything else. I remember that poll. There was a point these forums this last fall that nariusseldon was creating a new topic rehashing this same general debate every couple days.
I well remember those threads. And I was wondering, once I saw it was spot on, if you had thought about that poll when you posted.
I forget what the thread is about, but for some reason I just feel like heading down to the local record store to get the latest [current acceptable form factor] of [slightly counter-culture, but still widely recognized artist].
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
I know for a fact on Massively they are constantly talking about and mentioning that variuos games arent “real” MMO’s in thier articles and the podcast - especially since they relaunched. Its an old meme at this point. They cover traditional mmos, but also other online based games. Its not a secret or something.
They are even called Massively Overpowered - not mmo whatever.
They aint lying. But online gaming has changed. This guy needs to time travel to the present from 15+ years ago.
OK everyone, take a step back please. @Scot has the right of it: This isn't government policy or religious doctrine or any one of a thousand topics of any import in this world.
Let's stick to the topic please or, if it's just too much, back out of the thread gracefully.
I dunno about graceful but I'm def backing out of this one...
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
This thread is such an amazing feat of theater, grandstanding, subtle(and not) insults and circular arguments that I have to admit...
... I am kind of disappointed that I didn't create it.
You actually read the stuff? I never read the arguments of people who go back and forth. Some people just never let anything go and have to have the last word. Plus, each response is longer than my novel (91k words baby)
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I will leave this here from 2014 -- and to say that the MMO industry has gotten even more scarce in terms of news in the intervening 4 years is to understate things greatly, hence the further inclusion of MOBAs, multiplayer shooters, battle royale games and survival games to name a few.
"Over the next several years, something will be very apparent to the MMORPG faithful: MMORPGs will be released that aren't officially being called MMORPGs by their developers and publishers. Why? Because someone, somewhere, with all their marketing research and statistical analysis decided that "MMORPG" pretty much means World of Warcraft, nerds in the basement, and incidentally - the guy from South Park's beloved WoW episode.
The other side is that this means the genre's almost outgrown itself. More and more games are incorporating MMO-like features and online play into their core design. You'll have Bungie and Ubisoft claim often enough that Destiny or The Division "aren't really" MMOs. And perhaps, they're right. Destiny won't be a fully-on-all-the-time shared world in that you can't get away from other people. It has a core single-player narrative, but events happen in the massive game world that lead you into interacting and playing alongside others... and that almost sounds like the ideal theme park MMO, doesn't it?"
I got crucified on this site for suggesting that games like Division or Destiny are MMO because it didn't fit their OLD definition of MMO.
Good thing we no longer use the "old definitions" of what a dog or cat is....
Wait, we do....same for MMORPGS. No need to change what is easily understood.
Not sure how this thread spilled into this conversation, but again:
There is a difference between a Tiger and a Tabby Cat. When new information presents itself we make adjustments. Its why we have different types of tigers and different types of Tabby Cats. There isn't only ONE type of Cat.
There is a difference between an MMO-RPG (WoW) and an MMO-FPS (Destiny). Some people use the term "MMO-Lite". Whatever you want to say, you cannot avoid the "MMO" part. That's my point. There isn't one type of MMO.
Both are MMOs. It's not complicated. AND yes "What is easily understood" changes all the time, actually every day because of new information. How can you disregard the fact that new information or data can completely change everything you knew about a subject?
What really baffles me is how hard people are still fighting whats happening instead of embracing it. The reason is that they cant let go of the word "Massively". The MMO is obviously evolving. Don't be so attached to it meaning MASSIVELY or DaOC or some other old shit.
MMO (2014-2018) - Online Multiplayer game with RPG features, smaller instanced group spaces/Zones.
MMO (2000-2013) - Online Multiplayer game with RPG features with larger instanced group spaces/zones.
Again.
Destiny has RPG, FPS, and Multiplayer online features but it's in a smaller game space.
WoW has RPG and multiplayer online features but it's in a larger game space.
Hell, what about SWTOR? Is that not an "MMO" according to you? It's not Massive enough?
Guild Wars 1 had about the same or smaller zones than Destiny. The Guild Wars wiki says "Guild Wars is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game series developed by ArenaNet and published by NCSOFT"
Stop being so attached to the Word "MASSIVELY" its a buzzword from the early 2000's to sell box copies. If we want to be honest and keep it 100, MASSIVE is like 50k players AT ONCE playing in the same zone. That's massive and no game has that. Who can say they have counted even 1k people in a zone?? ....So there isn't a TRUE "MASSIVELY" game.
When they say "Our game has over 12m players" they are talking about accounts created, not players in a damn zone. Jesus.
I never said any game with CO-OP is MMO... that's a false narrative forced on everyone who agrees that the term MMO has a new meaning. As if we somehow lack the brain power to understand the concept of both.
Destiny has everything in common with WoW except the Zone sizes.
I'm so sick of and over this tired ass argument.
This is about the MMO genre of games today vs the early 2000's buzzword MASSIVELY.
Be sick of it all you like, the word massively has definitive meaning, it is not just a "buzzword" and it is just being intentionally obtuse if not ignorant to ignore it.
If you want to change MMO to mean Minimally Multiplayer Online, then you have an accurate description of Destiny and those other games.
Regardless what the Guldwars 1 Wiki states, (proving the ignorance of whoever created the listing) ANET themselves practically invented the term Cooperative Online RolePlaying Game (CORPG) when they self described GW1. (Which again, is a better description of Destiny)
BTW, for the record, just this year EVE crushed theirs with over 6000 pilots in a single star system.
While it crushed their hardware, CCP has gone back to the drawing board to redesign their environment to support such numbers.
Jita, the main trade hub routine support over 2100 pilots at its peak times.
So theres some great examples but Massively actually refers to the size of players in the game world, not one zone.
In DAOC, if it shows 1000 people online, if you ran through every zone you would be able to come in contact with or even kill all 1000 players as they are all in game with you, and not in a lobby.
Also, for the record, when the DAOC freeshard relaunched last year, they had 4000 users online at a time, not bad for a bunch of amateurs.
So no, your level of annoyance doesn't factor in at all regarding the word massively or what a MMO or MMORPG is.
BTW, I do agree with one of your points, I too am sick of having this same argument as I've proven it multiple times, yet it comes coming back.
No matter, I'm up to the challenge , as I said, there is no yielding on this point and it does please me to be right so often.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As @Iselin mentioned, the issue isn't about change. It's okay to have a debate about borderline titles due to technical improvements allowing devs to blur the line, but including titles such as MOBAs isn't debatable. They aren't, and the best argument for their inclusion has been either A) journalism leading the way, or B ) apathy about the distinction.
There's a simple resolution for both that doesn't include ignoring clear reality. As Iselin mentioned, I don't think it's done maliciously on the part of journalists. But they haven't done much to clarify or correct it, either.
Yeah but language doesn't evolve because of "strict rules" and adherence to protocol.
So if Journalists and developers and marketers are adding to that definition and they succeed then it's a done deal.
If I walk out of my house and call a car a truck and for some reason it catches on and more and more people start doing it then forever more it will be a truck.
A car with truck features is called a crossover car. Google it.
no I was being specific. A car.
Yea but there is reason people would say a car is truck. They wouldnt say it if it was clearly a car, there has to be enough truck there for people to question what they are looking at.
Nobody is gonna look at a Honda Civic and call it a truck bro. That's not whats happening here.
That wasn't the point.
Just like in certain areas all sodas are called coke ("they wouldn't say it was if it was clearly 'something else'" right?)
In other areas all soda is called "pop".
If for whatever reason a slang term, a colloquialism "whatever" caught on, then the name would change.
So the first "car" was not "car". It actually had other names, horseless carriage being one among many.
you mean MOTOR VEHICLES?! blasphemer!
Except of course that term broadly applies to any vehicle driven by a motor, from Mopeds to Tractor trailers, much like the term video game covers arcade, hand held, console, PC, phone and online games.
All cars are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are cars.
Same thing, all MMORPGS are video games, not all video games are MMORPGs.
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
With the thousands of times I have seen people type, "Not a MMO" he kinda has a point.
His point is that sites are "lying" in order to get clicks and they are purposefully deceiving players by "mislabeling" games.
As opposed to the definition evolving, especially because game developers are also calling their games "mmo's" even if they don't fit the first definition.
Well I don't consider hearthstone, league of legends, overwatch, or world of tanks or dozens of other examples spread out over all the sites he covered MMOs at all.
Sorry but if it's just multiplayer it's not a MMO otherwise MMO is meaningless.
That's great. And I have no issue with that. I don't consider them mmo's either. I also don't care what they are called because that's just too nerdy for me.
But if their developers are calling them mmo's (and I don't know if those specific games are called mmo's by their developers) then one can take the fight to them (*insert rolled eyes here*) or roll with the punches, live with it and move on.
I get a magazine called the Radio Times, when it began in 1923 it only covered radio. Now it covers TV, films in the cinema, books, money, holiday travel, various puzzles and of course radio. It did not change its name, it did not need to or want to, it broadened its coverage just like MMORPG.com has.
There have been categorisation issues, but its a grey area what do you expect? I have no issues with WoT being on the site, they call it an Action MMO, not ideal but a good enough category.
I am here for the MMOs, the MMO like games, the RPG reviews, the hardware reviews. But if Suzie wants to fly of somewhere and do a travel article I am not going to be posting to say "That is not a MMO".
But you know these are two separate issues.
One is they expanding, which is good. They even do hardware reviews now, nothing wrong with that. It's pretty dumb to criticize a free website that they are only allowed to write about mmorpgs because that's their name. Well your name is Smith and I don't see you doing any smithing neither!!
Second is labeling other genres as mmorpgs. That's whe'&n the zealots like I and Ky come to guide the flock
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
I agree with this premise. But I would say here is how the term MMO is going.
~80% of people who care about the term MMO understand it to mean a game where hundreds or thousands of players occupy the same world at the same time.
(Obviously if you ask your grandma who doesn't own a computer or someone who doesn't even speak English what MMO means their opinion doesn't matter because they aren't someone who would use or understand that phrase)
That other 20% tends to be people confusing the term because they have a stake in doing so, and those who see the people confusing the term as an "authority" on the term.
So I would not say this confusion has redefined the term because the buy-in by those who use the term is not high enough. Most of us still know what an MMO means, even if a few choose to consciously misuse that term.
First you should listen to video that was posted, it strikes exactly at the core of this discussion including "the two types of people, those are bothered by language fads/language change or those who find it interesting/fun as and something that should be studied as part of a living language".
Second I challenge your 80%. I don't even think it's that.
I think there is a group of people who were there at the start who need "MMO" to always be x. I also think there is a huge group of people, new players, players who perhaps came in With Elder Scrolls Online or any number of new games" who really don't care.
As I said before, go to a game conference and strike up some conversations. In my experience, for what it's worth, most people I spoke with knew a whopping 3 possibly 4 "MMO's" max (if they even knew them outside of World of Warcraft). This number has gone up.
The first time it was World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic and "oh yeah Everquest is the one that started it right?" This past PAX Elder Scrolls Online was a known factor though some people were just Elder Scrolls fans and didn't actually play it.
I also don't think everyone cares. I was there "close" to the beginning and I really don't care. I also recognize the idea of "a living language" as she puts it.
But the point is sort of moot because what is going to happen is going to happen. I think it would be sort of funny (in a sad way but in an interesting way) to find that "MMO" becomes a forgotten word. All this Sturm und Drang over something that in 20 years is as forgotten as Quadrycycle. Don't know what it is? Ask Henry Ford.
edit: I like your phrase "the buy in by those who use the term is not high enough". I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps in 100 years what you say will be true, but since today many of the original MMORPGs and MMOs are still running, and new ones still being created even today, (regardless if fewer in number) there is no valid reason to call a game "massively multiplayer" if it clearly doesn't qualify by any traditional standard.
Also irrelevant is whether 3 oiut of 4 gamers knows what a MMO is or what it means.
I'll bet 9/10 people don't know the difference between an italicism vs an acronym, or misuse the latter, doesn't change at all the "fact" the two are very different things.
At least for those of us who know better, the ignorant will always remain so.
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
With the thousands of times I have seen people type, "Not a MMO" he kinda has a point.
His point is that sites are "lying" in order to get clicks and they are purposefully deceiving players by "mislabeling" games.
As opposed to the definition evolving, especially because game developers are also calling their games "mmo's" even if they don't fit the first definition.
Well I don't consider hearthstone, league of legends, overwatch, or world of tanks or dozens of other examples spread out over all the sites he covered MMOs at all.
Sorry but if it's just multiplayer it's not a MMO otherwise MMO is meaningless.
That's great. And I have no issue with that. I don't consider them mmo's either. I also don't care what they are called because that's just too nerdy for me.
But if their developers are calling them mmo's (and I don't know if those specific games are called mmo's by their developers) then one can take the fight to them (*insert rolled eyes here*) or roll with the punches, live with it and move on.
I get a magazine called the Radio Times, when it began in 1923 it only covered radio. Now it covers TV, films in the cinema, books, money, holiday travel, various puzzles and of course radio. It did not change its name, it did not need to or want to, it broadened its coverage just like MMORPG.com has.
There have been categorisation issues, but its a grey area what do you expect? I have no issues with WoT being on the site, they call it an Action MMO, not ideal but a good enough category.
I am here for the MMOs, the MMO like games, the RPG reviews, the hardware reviews. But if Suzie wants to fly of somewhere and do a travel article I am not going to be posting to say "That is not a MMO".
But you know these are two separate issues.
One is they expanding, which is good. They even do hardware reviews now, nothing wrong with that. It's pretty dumb to criticize a free website that they are only allowed to write about mmorpgs because that's their name. Well your name is Smith and I don't see you doing any smithing neither!!
Second is labeling other genres as mmorpgs. That's whe'&n the zealots like I and Ky come to guide the flock
As I have done many times on here about what a proper MMO is myself, but lets try not to be zealots, we are not part of a religious cult.
Firstly it is a grey area, yes sometimes its obvious but often its debateable.
Secondly and here I am just guessing, MMORPG.com seemed to feel it had to justify the inclusion of new content for the site. I don't think they had to, but having articles shouting out that this was not a MMO may not have been thought the best idea. Indeed when they did point out the game in the article was not a MMO, a reply along the lines of "why is it here then?" was not rare.
You must be able to remember the posts where posters questioned articles on solo RPG's, "this is MMORPG.com" they said. There did seem to be a resistance for the site to do anything other than what was on the label. That may be partly where this stems from.
Once you have included a game what do you designate it to be? WoT (Action MMO) could be a Tank Battler, Mech Action, Tank RTS something like that. But remember the categories can't be unique to each game and they have to be easily understandable. You will never get players agreeing to what the category should be, that's herding cats time.
Finally I goggled 'What kind of game is World of Tanks', this is the first thing you see:
"World of Tanks is a huge mixture of multiple genres. First of all this is a global-scale MMO action game. Secondly, there's a combination of other genres like FPS, RTS, RPG, and simulator."
As far as I am concerned the word MMO should not be there, but if you came to this site and where looking for that sort of game, "Action MMO" would make sense. And they put "MMO" in bold letters, not me.
I can't help but feel using the 1999 term to define things of 2018 is a bit of a No True Scotsman defense. I can see why people do it, it simplifies things signifcantly but MMOs have evolved, they've become this weird hybrid thing that we commonly have today.
Obviously games like Path Of Exile are not an MMO, but saying a game does not qualify because it can only put 75 people in the same spot instead of 150 and despite it having all the usual features that people expect in their MMOs is a bit too anal all things considered.
I can't help but feel using the 1999 term to define things of 2018 is a bit of a No True Scotsman defense. I can see why people do it, it simplifies things signifcantly but MMOs have evolved, they've become this weird hybrid thing that we commonly have today.
Obviously games like Path Of Exile are not an MMO, but saying a game does not qualify because it can only put 75 people in the same spot instead of 150 and despite it having all the usual features that people expect in their MMOs is a bit too anal all things considered.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
But there are no true Scotsmen, apart from Highlanders in DAOC.
There is always going to be these tensions, but you can stand for what MMOs mean without labelling everyone who does not agree with your opinion a heretic.
I can't help but feel using the 1999 term to define things of 2018 is a bit of a No True Scotsman defense. I can see why people do it, it simplifies things signifcantly but MMOs have evolved, they've become this weird hybrid thing that we commonly have today.
Obviously games like Path Of Exile are not an MMO, but saying a game does not qualify because it can only put 75 people in the same spot instead of 150 and despite it having all the usual features that people expect in their MMOs is a bit too anal all things considered.
I can't help but feel using the 1999 term to define things of 2018 is a bit of a No True Scotsman defense. I can see why people do it, it simplifies things signifcantly but MMOs have evolved, they've become this weird hybrid thing that we commonly have today.
Obviously games like Path Of Exile are not an MMO, but saying a game does not qualify because it can only put 75 people in the same spot instead of 150 and despite it having all the usual features that people expect in their MMOs is a bit too anal all things considered.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
But there are no true Scotsmen, apart form Highlanders in DAOC.
There is always going to be these tensions, but you can stand for what MMOs mean without labelling everyone who does not agree with your opinion a heretic.
Very true. I also think a lot of the defenders/zealots/purists/old farts/enlightened ones hang on to what the term represents, not so much what it means, community, group play, the social aspect, player freedom, them good old days. Things they find missing in newer and cross over titles. You need to put some distance between the classics and that new hipster stuff.
Massively is not a specific number, it means on a vast scale. 16 doesn't qualify, but does 250? or 500? Or 5000? Didn't Garriott say that with Massively he meant 5000 players at the same time? Because in that case there are very, very few real MMORPGs.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'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
Perhaps in 100 years what you say will be true, but since today many of the original MMORPGs and MMOs are still running, and new ones still being created even today, (regardless if fewer in number) there is no valid reason to call a game "massively multiplayer" if it clearly doesn't qualify by any traditional standard.
Agreed. MMORPGS are not so much evolving as having additional near-MMOs added to the mix but games that are unquestionably MMOs in the 1999 usage of the term are still being produced today in tandem with the hybrids that resemble them by virtue of adding some MMO and/or RPG features.
I also find the attempt to carve out MMO as something distinct from MMORPG a bit forced. The reality is that term MMO has always also been used as a shorthand for MMORPG just becaase it's shorter to write and especially to say out loud (3 syllable instead of 6.)
Some people here when push comes to shove, will concede that some of these near-MMOs are not massively multiplayer enough to qualify as MMORPGs. But then they turn around and say that they are MMOs as if that first M loses all meaning when you use the 3 letter shortened version of the term.
I get that if you want to include a massively multiplayer FPS in the mix then MMO could apply equally to them. But those games that are FPS with no RPG and massively multiplayer as well are very rare and for them to be MMOs they really do need that massively multiplayer thing.
It's just weird to me all this effort to morph the meaning of the term while the things that the term was coined to refer to are still very relevant today. Yes, the common usage of words does change over time but usually over a long period of time and when the thing the word originally described becomes something archaic and not in common use. That's why trying to get the term MMO to mean something different right now feels forced as all hell to me.
"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 agree with this premise. But I would say here is how the term MMO is going.
~80% of people who care about the term MMO understand it to mean a game where hundreds or thousands of players occupy the same world at the same time.
(Obviously if you ask your grandma who doesn't own a computer or someone who doesn't even speak English what MMO means their opinion doesn't matter because they aren't someone who would use or understand that phrase)
That other 20% tends to be people confusing the term because they have a stake in doing so, and those who see the people confusing the term as an "authority" on the term.
So I would not say this confusion has redefined the term because the buy-in by those who use the term is not high enough. Most of us still know what an MMO means, even if a few choose to consciously misuse that term.
First you should listen to video that was posted, it strikes exactly at the core of this discussion including "the two types of people, those are bothered by language fads/language change or those who find it interesting/fun as and something that should be studied as part of a living language".
Second I challenge your 80%. I don't even think it's that.
I think there is a group of people who were there at the start who need "MMO" to always be x. I also think there is a huge group of people, new players, players who perhaps came in With Elder Scrolls Online or any number of new games" who really don't care.
As I said before, go to a game conference and strike up some conversations. In my experience, for what it's worth, most people I spoke with knew a whopping 3 possibly 4 "MMO's" max (if they even knew them outside of World of Warcraft). This number has gone up.
The first time it was World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic and "oh yeah Everquest is the one that started it right?" This past PAX Elder Scrolls Online was a known factor though some people were just Elder Scrolls fans and didn't actually play it.
I also don't think everyone cares. I was there "close" to the beginning and I really don't care. I also recognize the idea of "a living language" as she puts it.
But the point is sort of moot because what is going to happen is going to happen. I think it would be sort of funny (in a sad way but in an interesting way) to find that "MMO" becomes a forgotten word. All this Sturm und Drang over something that in 20 years is as forgotten as Quadrycycle. Don't know what it is? Ask Henry Ford.
edit: I like your phrase "the buy in by those who use the term is not high enough". I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps in 100 years what you say will be true, but since today many of the original MMORPGs and MMOs are still running, and new ones still being created even today, (regardless if fewer in number) there is no valid reason to call a game "massively multiplayer" if it clearly doesn't qualify by any traditional standard.
Also irrelevant is whether 3 oiut of 4 gamers knows what a MMO is or what it means.
I'll bet 9/10 people don't know the difference between an italicism vs an acronym, or misuse the latter, doesn't change at all the "fact" the two are very different things.
At least for those of us who know better, the ignorant will always remain so.
Well, as a person who writes for a living -- 36 years this July -- I agree. However, I rarely use the term initialism. Using acronym is sufficient and people know what you're talking about. That's the amazing thing about language. It does not have to be precise for successful communication to occur. Also, any good writer will tell you that clarity always trumps grammar. If you frequently send your reader to the dictionary, you failed.
The same is true of the term MMO. When someone uses MMO, we usually have context wrapped around what they're saying, so we know what they mean. Arguing about the term is just petty and pointless because it doesn't solve anything.
In writing, you will always have perfectionists and it's best to humor them and move on. The same is true when discussing gaming terms.
Perhaps in 100 years what you say will be true, but since today many of the original MMORPGs and MMOs are still running, and new ones still being created even today, (regardless if fewer in number) there is no valid reason to call a game "massively multiplayer" if it clearly doesn't qualify by any traditional standard.
Also irrelevant is whether 3 oiut of 4 gamers knows what a MMO is or what it means.
I'll bet 9/10 people don't know the difference between an italicism vs an acronym, or misuse the latter, doesn't change at all the "fact" the two are very different things.
At least for those of us who know better, the ignorant will always remain so.
But it is relevant.
1, If most people don't know what an "mmo" is then ascribing the moniker of "mmo" to any particular game has less meaning for them.
Saying MMO to someone who was there for Everquest and Ultima is way different than someone who played Star Wars the Old Republic mostly solo.
So in the end, a greater number of players "just don't care" what games are given the MMO moniker.
2, It's not Italicism it's initialism
3, And there is no time frame on how language evolves, whether it's 10 years or 100 years.
Sorry but its' out of all our hands and what will happen will happen.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I forget what the thread is about, but for some reason I just feel like heading down to the local record store to get the latest [current acceptable form factor] of [slightly counter-culture, but still widely recognized artist].
Perhaps in 100 years what you say will be true, but since today many of the original MMORPGs and MMOs are still running, and new ones still being created even today, (regardless if fewer in number) there is no valid reason to call a game "massively multiplayer" if it clearly doesn't qualify by any traditional standard.
Also irrelevant is whether 3 oiut of 4 gamers knows what a MMO is or what it means.
I'll bet 9/10 people don't know the difference between an italicism vs an acronym, or misuse the latter, doesn't change at all the "fact" the two are very different things.
At least for those of us who know better, the ignorant will always remain so.
But it is relevant.
1, If most people don't know what an "mmo" is then ascribing the moniker of "mmo" to any particular game has less meaning for them.
Saying MMO to someone who was there for Everquest and Ultima is way different than someone who played Star Wars the Old Republic mostly solo.
So in the end, a greater number of players "just don't care" what games are given the MMO moniker.
2, It's not Italicism it's initialism
3, And there is no time frame on how language evolves, whether it's 10 years or 100 years.
Sorry but its' out of all our hands and what will happen will happen.
And, as Eldurian mentioned, I've yet to see evidence that the majority of the playerbase uses or understands the term MMO is no longer MMO, but merely multiplayer.
This was not a natural evolution due to new media formats, as was the case with "record". It's a marketing push. The context matters. There's no benefit here for anyone but folks trying to cash in on the hype created by such marketing. That's where journalists failed their part; cut through the hype and bullshit: is the multiplayer massive, or the same we've seen since the days of Unreal Tournament? We don't need you to try and qualify the marketing strategy for the publisher.
As @Iselin mentioned, the issue isn't about change. It's okay to have a debate about borderline titles due to technical improvements allowing devs to blur the line, but including titles such as MOBAs isn't debatable. They aren't, and the best argument for their inclusion has been either A) journalism leading the way, or B ) apathy about the distinction.
There's a simple resolution for both that doesn't include ignoring clear reality. As Iselin mentioned, I don't think it's done maliciously on the part of journalists. But they haven't done much to clarify or correct it, either.
Yeah but language doesn't evolve because of "strict rules" and adherence to protocol.
So if Journalists and developers and marketers are adding to that definition and they succeed then it's a done deal.
If I walk out of my house and call a car a truck and for some reason it catches on and more and more people start doing it then forever more it will be a truck.
A car with truck features is called a crossover car. Google it.
no I was being specific. A car.
Yea but there is reason people would say a car is truck. They wouldnt say it if it was clearly a car, there has to be enough truck there for people to question what they are looking at.
Nobody is gonna look at a Honda Civic and call it a truck bro. That's not whats happening here.
That wasn't the point.
Just like in certain areas all sodas are called coke ("they wouldn't say it was if it was clearly 'something else'" right?)
In other areas all soda is called "pop".
If for whatever reason a slang term, a colloquialism "whatever" caught on, then the name would change.
So the first "car" was not "car". It actually had other names, horseless carriage being one among many.
you mean MOTOR VEHICLES?! blasphemer!
Except of course that term broadly applies to any vehicle driven by a motor, from Mopeds to Tractor trailers, much like the term video game covers arcade, hand held, console, PC, phone and online games.
All cars are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are cars.
Same thing, all MMORPGS are video games, not all video games are MMORPGs.
However there are cars that don't have motors too. Not sure how that factors in at all...
Comments
~~ postlarval ~~
Typical.
Let's stick to the topic please or, if it's just too much, back out of the thread gracefully.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
... I am kind of disappointed that I didn't create it.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
They are even called Massively Overpowered - not mmo whatever.
They aint lying. But online gaming has changed. This guy needs to time travel to the present from 15+ years ago.
"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/Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
If you want to change MMO to mean Minimally Multiplayer Online, then you have an accurate description of Destiny and those other games.
Regardless what the Guldwars 1 Wiki states, (proving the ignorance of whoever created the listing) ANET themselves practically invented the term Cooperative Online RolePlaying Game (CORPG) when they self described GW1. (Which again, is a better description of Destiny)
BTW, for the record, just this year EVE crushed theirs with over 6000 pilots in a single star system.
While it crushed their hardware, CCP has gone back to the drawing board to redesign their environment to support such numbers.
Jita, the main trade hub routine support over 2100 pilots at its peak times.
So theres some great examples but Massively actually refers to the size of players in the game world, not one zone.
In DAOC, if it shows 1000 people online, if you ran through every zone you would be able to come in contact with or even kill all 1000 players as they are all in game with you, and not in a lobby.
Also, for the record, when the DAOC freeshard relaunched last year, they had 4000 users online at a time, not bad for a bunch of amateurs.
So no, your level of annoyance doesn't factor in at all regarding the word massively or what a MMO or MMORPG is.
BTW, I do agree with one of your points, I too am sick of having this same argument as I've proven it multiple times, yet it comes coming back.
No matter, I'm up to the challenge , as I said, there is no yielding on this point and it does please me to be right so often.
"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
All cars are motor vehicles, but not all motor vehicles are cars.
Same thing, all MMORPGS are video games, not all video games are MMORPGs.
"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
One is they expanding, which is good. They even do hardware reviews now, nothing wrong with that. It's pretty dumb to criticize a free website that they are only allowed to write about mmorpgs because that's their name. Well your name is Smith and I don't see you doing any smithing neither!!
Second is labeling other genres as mmorpgs. That's whe'&n the zealots like I and Ky come to guide the flock
Also irrelevant is whether 3 oiut of 4 gamers knows what a MMO is or what it means.
I'll bet 9/10 people don't know the difference between an italicism vs an acronym, or misuse the latter, doesn't change at all the "fact" the two are very different things.
At least for those of us who know better, the ignorant will always remain so.
"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
Firstly it is a grey area, yes sometimes its obvious but often its debateable.
Secondly and here I am just guessing, MMORPG.com seemed to feel it had to justify the inclusion of new content for the site. I don't think they had to, but having articles shouting out that this was not a MMO may not have been thought the best idea. Indeed when they did point out the game in the article was not a MMO, a reply along the lines of "why is it here then?" was not rare.
You must be able to remember the posts where posters questioned articles on solo RPG's, "this is MMORPG.com" they said. There did seem to be a resistance for the site to do anything other than what was on the label. That may be partly where this stems from.
Once you have included a game what do you designate it to be? WoT (Action MMO) could be a Tank Battler, Mech Action, Tank RTS something like that. But remember the categories can't be unique to each game and they have to be easily understandable. You will never get players agreeing to what the category should be, that's herding cats time.
Finally I goggled 'What kind of game is World of Tanks', this is the first thing you see:
As far as I am concerned the word MMO should not be there, but if you came to this site and where looking for that sort of game, "Action MMO" would make sense. And they put "MMO" in bold letters, not me.
Obviously games like Path Of Exile are not an MMO, but saying a game does not qualify because it can only put 75 people in the same spot instead of 150 and despite it having all the usual features that people expect in their MMOs is a bit too anal all things considered.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
But there are no true Scotsmen, apart from Highlanders in DAOC.
There is always going to be these tensions, but you can stand for what MMOs mean without labelling everyone who does not agree with your opinion a heretic.
Massively is not a specific number, it means on a vast scale. 16 doesn't qualify, but does 250? or 500? Or 5000? Didn't Garriott say that with Massively he meant 5000 players at the same time? Because in that case there are very, very few real MMORPGs.
/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
I also find the attempt to carve out MMO as something distinct from MMORPG a bit forced. The reality is that term MMO has always also been used as a shorthand for MMORPG just becaase it's shorter to write and especially to say out loud (3 syllable instead of 6.)
Some people here when push comes to shove, will concede that some of these near-MMOs are not massively multiplayer enough to qualify as MMORPGs. But then they turn around and say that they are MMOs as if that first M loses all meaning when you use the 3 letter shortened version of the term.
I get that if you want to include a massively multiplayer FPS in the mix then MMO could apply equally to them. But those games that are FPS with no RPG and massively multiplayer as well are very rare and for them to be MMOs they really do need that massively multiplayer thing.
It's just weird to me all this effort to morph the meaning of the term while the things that the term was coined to refer to are still very relevant today. Yes, the common usage of words does change over time but usually over a long period of time and when the thing the word originally described becomes something archaic and not in common use. That's why trying to get the term MMO to mean something different right now feels forced as all hell to me.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The same is true of the term MMO. When someone uses MMO, we usually have context wrapped around what they're saying, so we know what they mean. Arguing about the term is just petty and pointless because it doesn't solve anything.
In writing, you will always have perfectionists and it's best to humor them and move on. The same is true when discussing gaming terms.
~~ postlarval ~~
1, If most people don't know what an "mmo" is then ascribing the moniker of "mmo" to any particular game has less meaning for them.
Saying MMO to someone who was there for Everquest and Ultima is way different than someone who played Star Wars the Old Republic mostly solo.
So in the end, a greater number of players "just don't care" what games are given the MMO moniker.
2, It's not Italicism it's initialism
3, And there is no time frame on how language evolves, whether it's 10 years or 100 years.
Sorry but its' out of all our hands and what will happen will happen.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
HEY HEY, HO HO, RPG DISCRIMINATION HAZ GOTZ TO GO! HEY HEY, HO HO
Aloha Mr Hand !
Aloha Mr Hand !
This was not a natural evolution due to new media formats, as was the case with "record". It's a marketing push. The context matters. There's no benefit here for anyone but folks trying to cash in on the hype created by such marketing. That's where journalists failed their part; cut through the hype and bullshit: is the multiplayer massive, or the same we've seen since the days of Unreal Tournament? We don't need you to try and qualify the marketing strategy for the publisher.