So a game released in 2000 is older than a game released in 1992? Interesting chronology you have there.
Also of note, that's another survival game, no mods required for it to be a survival.
I will put you on ignore now and leave you in your need to be right even when proven wrong. I wish you well and happy history hunting
You started this argument dude. If you want to start an argument you shouldn't throw a hissy-fit when you lose it. You can't prove something wrong by rambling on a tangent that doesn't relate to it either.
This was a remarkably petty chain of posts from you. I expected better of you.
Not sure why people are so hung on the stupid definition - who cares? MMO, not mmo, survival - whatever
Will it have fun gameplay - all that matters to me.
Definitions are important for many people. If you dont need them, then great for you, but I do not think caring about definitions is something so strange that you should not be able to get it.
I prefer being able to identify and classify things based on their definition. If we do not stick to them, then what is the point of them existing in the first place.
If someone tells me they like to listen to metal music, I know what they mean exactly because it is defined.
Just like metal defines a music genre, MMORPG defines a game genre. One that many of us care about and one we do not appreciate being violated by calling games from other genres MMORPGs. This goes beyond whether a game is fun or not.
Really? So when they say they like metal music you can instantly discern which category of metal music they're into?
Those are sub-genres and genre fusions for a reason. And yes, she was broad on her explanation, but you understand what she means, don't be a prick.
You are just making her point even more valid: As we evolve, the need for better understanding of something makes we define even more, to restrict even more, what stays in which group and why.
And if we'll start to measure dicks I can increase your list, and I'm sure there are people here that, if you want trouble, can make it double
Ahem, no. Those Super genres, and sub genres, exist for a very specific reason. The entire music industry uses them to catalogue, define, classify, tabulate, litigate, market, and merchandise their products. Just because the video game industry is in its infancy compared to the aforementioned music industry doesn't mean they will treat their genre classifications with any less diligence. What She, or you, or I decide to call these various types of games, it is the industry itself that will ultimately decide the outcome. Whether we like it or not. An that was exactly my post's point. We happy few bastards here on these forums may have a vast difference to what terms we ascribe to what type of game, but in the end, it is not our choice to make.
And it seems, in this instance, the industry has made that choice. Shared world.
I think many just want a little more understanding of MMORPG.com's obstinence in this case. It also makes me wonder about past cases.
I've said many times I couldn't give two shits if MMORPG.com expands their coverage. Just don't be intellectually dishonest with us gamers, because it's insulting to my (and others') intelligence. I'm finding it hard to see an alternate explanation for the assertion here by the site that Fallout 76 is anything other than a shared world survival RPG (all jokes aside about the exhaustive genre descriptors).
Regardless of what online mode the game has, my interest increased tenfold when Tod Howard said the game has a single player Story. If that story can be played with friends online then that will make this game much more complete than Ark, Rust, etc, which have no in depth story to go through.
Regardless of what online mode the game has, my interest increased tenfold when Tod Howard said the game has a single player Story. If that story can be played with friends online then that will make this game much more complete than Ark, Rust, etc, which have no in depth story to go through.
Don't jump the gun too much. There is a "single player" campaign, but it's handled largely through their radiant quest system and they seed most of it through interaction with terminals and world objects, as they removed non-player humans from the game world for Fallout 76.
That said, there is a story campaign regardless of that distinction of it's implementation, and it can be played solo or cooperatively. Only factor to consider after that is that while Todd has said they are looking at how to implement controls to prevent griefing, or simply allowing people to opt-out of PvP entirely, it's launching as Beth-hosted online world with player hosted worlds only coming post-launch. Meaning even if you play it "solo" at launch, there will usually still be other people in the game world.
Man, when people dogpile without knowing what they are jumping into it gets really sad.
Right the point is for people to stop crediting wurm and a low budget arma mod for creating the genre and then acting like Fallout is hopping on a bandwagon. I merely pointed out that with the FO and Wasteland comment. It's like saying WoW created MMOs. It didn't. It may have defined themeparks, like ARK has done with current survival titles, but it didn't invent the genre.
That's why I personally never said any of the prior mentioned ones were the inventors of the genre.
It's not like Wasteland was the first post-apocalyptic title either, but you'll be hard pressed to find people familiar with the games of of the late 1970s to the early 1980s who can list them for you because Wasteland stands as one of the few original popularizers of that genre.
Saying a game that did not popularize or define something somehow did does not further that point you say you're wishing to make, it only muddies it further. So it kind of throws a wrench into the works to dogpile comments that confuse things, like calling RPGs that don't do the survival bit as survival games before other titles that are actually survival games.
The industry continues to push with calling everything with any form of multiplayer an MMO. There is nothing massive about this game. You are all tip tapping around the tern "dozen". MMOs have hundreds or thousands of players. It is another twist on the survival genre. It is not an MMO or and MMORPG. There is nothing "Massive" about playing in a game world that support the same number of players as some lobby shooters out there.
The industry continues to push with calling everything with any form of multiplayer an MMO. There is nothing massive about this game. You are all tip tapping around the tern "dozen". MMOs have hundreds or thousands of players. It is another twist on the survival genre. It is not an MMO or and MMORPG. There is nothing "Massive" about playing in a game world that support the same number of players as some lobby shooters out there.
Not really the industry doing it in this case any ways. I've so far only seen this site and one tweet claiming it's an MMO while most other news sites and people are calling it some permutation of "survival game".
Given the amount of news that has come out since this article, it's somewhat likely that the multiplayer survival genre classification will be used more universally going forward, but you'll always have stragglers.
And hey Ceceropia, you want to explain why you think false statements are awesome?
The game does lend its self to my interests quite well, but it isn't by definition an MMORPG. For that you need environments that hold thousands of players if not more for that categorization to be accurate. You just cant have a game with multiplayer functionality with a capacity 32 players and go ohh it must be an MMO, no that's not how its works. Its kind of in the acronym " Massively Multiplayer Online" massive does not mean 32 people.
So I think we can all put that to rest. When the company of the game in question states specifically that it is NOT an MMO or Battle Royale then it is not one.
I'm shocked that editor of MMORPG.com didn't know definition of MMORPG and mistook MOG for it. I'm shocked to the point that this post forced me to write my first comment in 10-11 years since registration.
The solo play part I don't understand ... will they allow people to play alone with no interference or do they mean a solo play style where you still can have others destroy what you have built and able to interact with other players.
This is the real vague crap from Todd. Yes you can solo means you don't have to group up with people. But if those people decide to kill you then to bad.
After watching the NoClip documentary on the game I'm much more interested. It'll be great to play with 3 friends each being spec'd for specific things. I myself plan to work on crafting food.
Come on guys.. this was obvious. Look at ESO. They want to do the same with Fallout.
Milking the game as much as they can.. and don't think that Skyrim 6 is coming anything time soon . They have to milk Fallout first and then, when they're done with Fallout, we'll get Skyrim, not before.
This is purely business. Bethesda is there for one reason and only one. $$$$$$$
What else is a corporate game company supposed to do? There existence is to make money.
Comments
aight then buddy
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Interesting chronology you have there.
Also of note, that's another survival game, no mods required for it to be a survival.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
This was a remarkably petty chain of posts from you. I expected better of you.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I think many just want a little more understanding of MMORPG.com's obstinence in this case. It also makes me wonder about past cases.
I've said many times I couldn't give two shits if MMORPG.com expands their coverage. Just don't be intellectually dishonest with us gamers, because it's insulting to my (and others') intelligence. I'm finding it hard to see an alternate explanation for the assertion here by the site that Fallout 76 is anything other than a shared world survival
RPG (all jokes aside about the exhaustive genre descriptors).
EDIT- grammatical errors.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
That said, there is a story campaign regardless of that distinction of it's implementation, and it can be played solo or cooperatively. Only factor to consider after that is that while Todd has said they are looking at how to implement controls to prevent griefing, or simply allowing people to opt-out of PvP entirely, it's launching as Beth-hosted online world with player hosted worlds only coming post-launch. Meaning even if you play it "solo" at launch, there will usually still be other people in the game world.
It's not like Wasteland was the first post-apocalyptic title either, but you'll be hard pressed to find people familiar with the games of of the late 1970s to the early 1980s who can list them for you because Wasteland stands as one of the few original popularizers of that genre.
Saying a game that did not popularize or define something somehow did does not further that point you say you're wishing to make, it only muddies it further. So it kind of throws a wrench into the works to dogpile comments that confuse things, like calling RPGs that don't do the survival bit as survival games before other titles that are actually survival games.
Given the amount of news that has come out since this article, it's somewhat likely that the multiplayer survival genre classification will be used more universally going forward, but you'll always have stragglers.
And hey Ceceropia, you want to explain why you think false statements are awesome?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I'm shocked to the point that this post forced me to write my first comment in 10-11 years since registration.