Trying to control and rule a discussion on page 6.. you're such the idealist.
Haha, Ungood... You are an enigma. You are seriously my favorite person here. Very perceptive, but also unapologetic and brutally honest. I always laugh at your reactions (same with remsleep), hehe.
Yep, we indeed derailed the thread from its original course, and I apologise for it (since I threw in the "writing lost its weight" topic...), but maybe closing the thread would be a bit too drastic...
NOOO! Po_gg! It's nobody's fault! I think it's really cool that people are saying what's on their mind, but I also feel responsible for keeping this Thread "clean and proper", I guess. I honestly don't know what to do, I always feel like I'm displeasing one person or the other...
Usually threads fizzle out, I would discourage a hard close. People, including yourself, may want to come back and give updates.
Thanks... Yes, you're probably right. I'm just worried that by the time I come back, this Thread will be blown out of proportion and I'll have no way of following who said/what... I mean, I do feel kind of responsible since it's "my Thread", but I also don't want to get in other people's way of sharing their own thoughts... Actually, I think it's awesome that everyone is speaking their mind, but also terrifying since I get disoriented quite fast... I'll have to apologize then to any person who might feel ignored or rejected because I mistakenly read over their post or something.
I thought it would be a good close since I did find an MMO to play and I was able to say what was on my mind. But yes, keeping this Thread open might be a good idea so I could share any potential news & tidbits in the future. I do want to be of SOME use here, haha. And you guys are far too fun to leave behind, if I'm perfectly honest... *blushes*
Story in games is not the same as what you find elsewhere, but there are similarities naturally. The text you have to read is very small, I can't see how that can put anyone of, you may be in a different mindset when you are gaming but I fail to see how that's an issue. When people went to the first silent movies they were not expecting to read a book, I doubt they walked out at the first subtitles...today far wordier sub titles appear in foreign TV series, they do not distract me from my "watching the tv" mindset.
Sure you may have quite a few text stops to make, but typically you read such text as an introduction to a quest or on a quest ending. You are likely back in a hub of some sort dealing with all your in-between activities, hardly a chore. You will be selling drops to my word, having to read a couple of lines of text. Oh the horror!
3. TSWL (F2P): I would say this game belongs to the Top 5 MMOs list. Purely because it is so unique and offers such an alternate experience compared to most MMOs out there. Has great voice-acting and writing in it. The quests are fun and diverse, it's not just "fetch" quests. There are some mini-games in the form of puzzles that you have to solve. Also the atmosphere and writing is very suspenseful, and it deals with whacky conspiracy theories and metaphysical/philosophy stuff (awesome, right?). If you like subtle humor and sarcastic dialogue, look no further. The game is quite dead, though, so you might have a hard time forming parties for dungeons and/or defeating stronger enemies. It can get lonely fast...
Just a small correction, but Secret World Legends is not an MMO.
When they did the relaunch of the game, the "massively multiplayer" is one of the things they removed from the original.
That should have no bearing on whether you think the game is good or not, it's great to hear you are having a lot of fun with the game! But, if you're going to be recommending MMOs to new / returning players, they should probably be, you know, MMOs.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Trying to control and rule a discussion on page 6.. you're such the idealist.
Haha, Ungood... You are an enigma. You are seriously my favorite person here. Very perceptive, but also unapologetic and brutally honest. I always laugh at your reactions (same with remsleep), hehe.
I too am also a fan of Rem's blunt honesty.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
3. TSWL (F2P): I would say this game belongs to the Top 5 MMOs list. Purely because it is so unique and offers such an alternate experience compared to most MMOs out there. Has great voice-acting and writing in it. The quests are fun and diverse, it's not just "fetch" quests. There are some mini-games in the form of puzzles that you have to solve. Also the atmosphere and writing is very suspenseful, and it deals with whacky conspiracy theories and metaphysical/philosophy stuff (awesome, right?). If you like subtle humor and sarcastic dialogue, look no further. The game is quite dead, though, so you might have a hard time forming parties for dungeons and/or defeating stronger enemies. It can get lonely fast...
Just a small correction, but Secret World Legends is not an MMO.
When they did the relaunch of the game, the "massively multiplayer" is one of the things they removed from the original.
That should have no bearing on whether you think the game is good or not, it's great to hear you are having a lot of fun with the game! But, if you're going to be recommending MMOs to new / returning players, they should probably be, you know, MMOs.
Oh, so it's not an... MMO anymore? That's so confusing!! How is it not an MMO? On the Wikipedia it says: "TSW is a massively multiplayer online role-playing video game"...
I can't find anything on the offical website about it not being an MMO, either... Hmm, but I guess you know what you're talking about. Apparently it's also known as a "Shared World Action RPG", and part of it means having a lower player cap per instance zone??? The main difference between the original SW and SWL is that the population has been changed from 60 to 10, apparently... Now I know why I hardly run into other players. It's done on purpose to give you a more "improved solo experience"! So that's why TSWL felt so atmospheric and mysterious at times... They did a good job there, but I would argue that for SOME people expecting an "MMO" could feel, indeed, isolated. I was under the impression that the game was dead and that's why I failed to meet with other people, but that's just how the game is designed... Very interesting, that means there is still hope! Haha. I was almost about to quit this game because there were times I really missed just having another player around... Not that this game doesn't rock on its own, it is a very awesome game and worth playing regardless of the presence of others. But yeah, for anyone looking for the added "social" benefits of MMOs, TSWL might not be your best bet... I still would want to recommend this game, simply because it's so different and an incredible cool play. You get to play a solid, quality game without even needing to pay! But yes, you're right, I should add that it's not an MMO. Don't expect to make friends here. Thanks for being so methodical as usual, cameltosis! At least you are useful !
Just a small correction, but Secret World Legends is not an MMO.
Oh, so it's not an... MMO anymore? That's so confusing!! How is it not an MMO? On the Wikipedia it says: "TSW is a massively multiplayer online role-playing video game"...
TSW was, so the wiki entry is correct.
But yep, as camel says (and as we were debating it with Knight before), at the Legends relaunch they've lowered the population cap, and marketed it as an online "shared world" game.
And as I said in a previous post about its original layering technique, the cap reduction ain't made Legends more "felt so atmospheric and mysterious at times", in TSW you too just bumped into only few players here and there, by default.
When I tried Legends at the beta (never again ), it wasn't "emptier" at all on the zones compared to TSW.
What the reduction did was eliminating the option of meeting more players, when you want to, for any reasons.
If the lairs wouldn't need 10 players, I'm sure they'd have made the cap even lower... but still, they've turned it into a lobby game, so to speak.
But yep, as camel says (and as we were debating it with Knight before), at the Legends relaunch they've lowered the population cap, and marketed it as an online "shared world" game.
And as I said in a previous post about its original layering technique, the cap reduction ain't made Legends more "felt so atmospheric and mysterious at times", in TSW you too just bumped into only few players here and there, by default.
When I tried Legends at the beta (never again ), it wasn't "emptier" at all on the zones compared to TSW.
What the reduction did was eliminating the option of meeting more players, when you want to, for any reasons.
If the lairs wouldn't need 10 players, I'm sure they'd have made the cap even lower... but still, they've turned it into a lobby game, so to speak.
I read something like this, too. For me, "Lobby Games" and "Shared World" games all fall under the MMO category, but I can see how in official "gaming terms" this is not correct. I feel more at east now, though, knowing that isn't just me... That the game was always like this. However, I am concerned about the following (I have to reread everything now X)):
It has a more streamlined character building system, which some TSW players don't like and is partly the reason many of them like to pretend it doesn't exist.
Pretend? Ok, I can't speak for all, naturally, but for me it really does not exist
But, as Prof. Tosspot said at its launch (https://youtu.be/DiEKJ0_K9nY ) I guess you could play it for the story... but only if all the rest, what was mentioned in the other review, aren't important to you.
The no levels, no classes, no handholding, the flexibility and challenge, etc. are all gone from Legends. It has levels, classes, dumbed to the ground, hand holding without any challenge...
Not to mention two elements specifically quoted during the course of the thread:
-no grind. Legends is like a generic korean grinder with TSW skin, all those handholdy, dumbed down easification changes were countered with grind. The typical present day "gameplay" of low challenge where longevity was achieved by grind upon grind.
-pvp (bonus points for territory based). Legends doesn't have TSW's pvp zones, except the smallest/shortest (and ofc the most boring one), Shambala.
Naturally, since it ain't an MMORPG anymore, the player cap was reduced severely on the zones.
(TSW's Fusang on its heydays had near 500 players at once, fighting all over the zone to control wells (respawn points) and the facilities)
But sure, if one can ignore the generic, boring and grindy gameplay, TSW's story and missions are still there in Legends...
Being a game of horror, conspiracy, and such, it makes sense to have a lower cap on zone population to maintain the feeling of isolation fitting to those genres.
That's bull.
Player count has worked for 5 years perfectly, the game was designed that way, with the world bosses, etc.
The whole "Legends ain't an MMORPG anymore, it's an online action game" rebranding was a must, due to technical issues (paired with Funcom's laziness).
Mind you, it started in TSW even, after ignoring the game for years without actual development, the lag and crashes got so bad, for the last year they had to reduce the player cap to 40 in the world, and 150 (maybe even to 120?) in Fusang - that's why I posted above the pvp had near 500 players, in the heydays.
But when the Legends idea came up and they started to meddle with the code to squeeze in their precious reticule action combat, they realised even that lowered 40 cap won't fly.
Enter the PR stunt of "Not massively anymore, for immersion and isolation".
That technical issues may have been partly responsible for the shift it still fits the setting and tone of the game well.
Not partly The need of reduce came from the engine difficulties.
Even moreso, if solo/small group and "immersion" were really the reason, they could've just went with GW's design (especially with the much more immersion-breaking and dumb Agartha change...), a central hub and everything else is instance.
The player cap wasn't set lower than 10 because of the lairs. (a.k.a. Funcom's laziness)
They could put the event and player-summoned world bosses into Agartha on empty platforms, that was simple work, and a better control on server load.
But reworking or removing the lairs... a whole different level of effort. So they just reduced the cap to 10 and called it a day.
Also, you got it wrong (or at least the other way around) with
To me, TSW felt much more forced with tons of players running around willy nilly.
the critique of cap reducing is for the top end, not the bottom...
TSW's layering was really good. You didn't see "tons of players running around willy nilly", unless there was a world boss, or a hunting party - but even in that case if you weren't part of it, they disappeared the next time you loaded (like jumping in a mission and out).
On general, average playtime the players occasionally bumped into just a few other players in an area, and the game put an emphasis on your friend list, cabal and former group members in the selection.
It wasn't a solo experience, obviously, it was an MMORPG, and the lore also was around the factions and other parties are present all the time... As the templars got smacked with the cold truth right at the start, "You're not the only one, and you're not the Chosen One".
But even with that, it wasn't more crowded than Legends in the beta (I was there, out of curiousity... what a letdown).
Nope, the critique is about taking away the option (you know, option is king) for getting together.
It was always just an option, mind you, due to the layering mentioned above, if you wanted to gather a group larger than 20-25 players, for any reasons, you had to use the invite and Meet Up features. The possibility was there, and it ain't in Legends.
Things like the Visible Dark for example (player-created investigation/roleplay event, you can find my post about it (shameless plug ) in the old Secret World section here) are impossible in Legends, simply because of you can't have more than 10 players out in the zones.
Same applies for the Rider (also an investigation event, just by Funcom).
OKAY NOW I'M QUITTING TSWL FOR GOOD THANKS FOR RUINING EVERYTHING FOR ME PO_OGGGG I was so blissfully unaware until you brought up all the naggy's....
But yeah, I still love the game... Even if it is sh*t compared to it's younger cousin, but argh... I can't let go of something so precious. TSWL is everything I've ever wanted out of any game. It's dark, gloomy, mysterious, tall and handsome... Sorry, are we still talking about TSWL? Haha, but thanks for being such a know-it-all Po_ogg. Your scope of knowingness is astounding! I'm always like: "o.O Wut, how does he know all this stuff?" Incredible!
But yep, as camel says (and as we were debating it with Knight before), at the Legends relaunch they've lowered the population cap, and marketed it as an online "shared world" game.
And as I said in a previous post about its original layering technique, the cap reduction ain't made Legends more "felt so atmospheric and mysterious at times", in TSW you too just bumped into only few players here and there, by default.
When I tried Legends at the beta (never again ), it wasn't "emptier" at all on the zones compared to TSW.
What the reduction did was eliminating the option of meeting more players, when you want to, for any reasons.
If the lairs wouldn't need 10 players, I'm sure they'd have made the cap even lower... but still, they've turned it into a lobby game, so to speak.
I read something like this, too. For me, "Lobby Games" and "Shared World" games all fall under the MMO category, but I can see how in official "gaming terms" this is not correct. I feel more at east now, though, knowing that isn't just me... That the game was always like this. However, I am concerned about the following (I have to reread everything now X)):
This isn't a matter of "official" gaming terms. There is nothing official about any of them nor is their universal agreement on their meaning and application. Claimed legitimacy doesn't by necessity establish it.
So, take such declarations with a bit of salt, as you will see a wide variety in the usage of these terms between posters.
Regardless, the two categories I use most are games I enjoy and games I don't, as the remaining details aren't all that important to me.
Ahhh, I feel so bad now for disrupting an interesting conversation... But it is overwhelming to say the least and I feel like this is not the right place to do it. Sorry AlBQuirky, I understand if there are people out there who want to express themselves freely, but I'm afraid it'll confuse/scare away any new/returning players with similar questions to my original Thread.
No need to apologize! I agree with keeping "on topic." Many of us have covered "What is an RPG" many times before, and will again
I'll go back reading the info shared here. I'm learning a lot
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
This isn't a matter of "official" gaming terms. There is nothing official about any of them nor is their universal agreement on their meaning and application. Claimed legitimacy doesn't by necessity establish it.
So, take such declarations with a bit of salt, as you will see a wide variety in the usage of these terms between posters.
Regardless, the two categories I use most are games I enjoy and games I don't, as the remaining details aren't all that important to me.
S-so cool... Does that make TSWL an MMO, then? My head is spinning... @.@ Should I call it an "Shared World Action RPG" instead of an "MMO"...? Hm, perhaps I can alter the summary to something like this:
I would say this game belongs to the Top 5 MMOs/Shared World Action RPG/Instance Lobby Game list (even though it is arguably not an MMO, nobody knows it's "true" definition... It is a mystery, like this game is). It offers a unique and alternative experience compared to most MMOs/Shared World Action RPG/Instance Lobby Game out there. Has great voice-acting and writing in it. The quests are fun and diverse, it's not just "fetch" quests. There are some mini-games in the form of puzzles that you have to solve. Also, the atmosphere and mood is very suspenseful, and it deals with whacky conspiracy theories and metaphysical/philosophy (pretty awesome, right?). If you like subtle humor and sarcastic dialogue, look no further. This game might have an active community? Also, a HUGE mystery. But don't worry, it's alllll part of the gaming experience... I'm told, heh... It is heavily instance based with a player cap of 1-10, so you might run into some people, you might not. But hey, this game is known for its ambiguity so just enjoy it as is. Or not?
If I'm not sorely mistaken I believe the original version of "the Secret World" is available but it might be even less populated than Legends. You might want to check it out to be sure. That one is an MMORPG.
This isn't a matter of "official" gaming terms. There is nothing official about any of them nor is their universal agreement on their meaning and application. Claimed legitimacy doesn't by necessity establish it.
So, take such declarations with a bit of salt, as you will see a wide variety in the usage of these terms between posters.
Regardless, the two categories I use most are games I enjoy and games I don't, as the remaining details aren't all that important to me.
S-so cool... Does that make TSWL an MMO, then? My head is spinning... @.@ Should I call it an "Shared World Action RPG" instead of an "MMO"...? Hm, perhaps I can alter the summary to something like this:
Massively Multiplayer Online Game
Richard Garriott and Raph Koster both said the threshold for being an MMOG was 250 players within the same virtual environment. They basically invented MMOs and this is what they defined it as (20 years ago). They clarified this on an article on this website a few years back too.
But really, anything that supports more than 128 players in the same virtual environment could be considered an MMOG because "massively" is subjective. So, if you genuinely think 129 is massively bigger than 128, then a game supporting 129 could be called an MMOG.
The "128" number comes from other multiplayer online titles. "Massively" is a comparative term, so when you are quantifying the multiplayer aspect of the game, you have to compare it to all other online titles. The average player cap for an online title is roughly 23 people (based on steams top 200 online multiplayer games) with a typical spread of 2-128.
So, if 128 players is considered normal (Battlefield games for example), then to be considered massively multiplayer, you therefore need to support more players than 128 players in the same virtual environment.
Now, of course, whether you give a shit about a game being massively multiplayer, or just normal multiplayer, is entirely up to you. I would argue that the majority of the current market couldn't care less: as long as they can play an RPG with their small group of friends, having 10 people in the background or 1000 people in the background makes no difference. Hell, for a lot of players, its not even about playing with their friends, simply being able to play an RPG in an IP they love is enough, regardless of whether its single player, multiplayer or massively multiplayer!
Likewise, there are very few massively mutliplayer features in MMOGs. Outside of PvP, what content even makes use of 128+ players?!?!?! It's not like we have 200 player raids, or 500 player cooperative building projects.
This is why studios have largely stopped making MMOGs of any sort. Why bother putting in all that time and effort making something massively multiplayer if a lot of players don't care and the studios don't make use of it? Is it really worth all that effort just to have hundreds of players running about in the background? Its much easier, and cheaper, to scale back to normal multiplayer numbers whilst retaining all the RPG features that players want. Which is exactly what has happened.
There does exist a small group of players, like myself, who will keep asking for genuinely massively multiplayer games. We see it as a feature, the unique selling point, of the genre. We love the sheer scale of it! And we see the massive potential of embracing that feature, making real use of it to deliver experiences you literally can't find elsewhere. However, being such a small group, its unlikely we'll get many games made for us until the technology required to make such games becomes much easier to develop.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
S-so cool... Does that make TSWL an MMO, then? My head is spinning... @.@ Should I call it an "Shared World Action RPG" instead of an "MMO"...? Hm, perhaps I can alter the summary to something like this:
I would say this game belongs to the Top 5 MMOs/Shared World Action RPG/Instance Lobby Game list (even though it is arguably not an MMO, nobody knows it's "true" definition... It is a mystery, like this game is). It offers a unique and alternative experience compared to most MMOs/Shared World Action RPG/Instance Lobby Game out there. Has great voice-acting and writing in it. The quests are fun and diverse, it's not just "fetch" quests. There are some mini-games in the form of puzzles that you have to solve. Also, the atmosphere and mood is very suspenseful, and it deals with whacky conspiracy theories and metaphysical/philosophy (pretty awesome, right?). If you like subtle humor and sarcastic dialogue, look no further. This game might have an active community? Also, a HUGE mystery. But don't worry, it's alllll part of the gaming experience... I'm told, heh... It is heavily instance based with a player cap of 1-10, so you might run into some people, you might not. But hey, this game is known for its ambiguity so just enjoy it as is. Or not?
I'll go back reading the info shared here. I'm learning a lot
Awesome! Makes me happy to hear that someone can at least gain something useful from my Thread. I'm learning a lot this way, too.
Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game would be the proper sub genre, as it is definitely not considered a MMO except by those who intentionally misuse the term.
Yes, this is a hill I'm always willing to die on in my never ending quest to stomp out ignorance in gaming forums everywhere.
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
But yep, as camel says (and as we were debating it with Knight before), at the Legends relaunch they've lowered the population cap, and marketed it as an online "shared world" game.
And as I said in a previous post about its original layering technique, the cap reduction ain't made Legends more "felt so atmospheric and mysterious at times", in TSW you too just bumped into only few players here and there, by default.
When I tried Legends at the beta (never again ), it wasn't "emptier" at all on the zones compared to TSW.
What the reduction did was eliminating the option of meeting more players, when you want to, for any reasons.
If the lairs wouldn't need 10 players, I'm sure they'd have made the cap even lower... but still, they've turned it into a lobby game, so to speak.
I read something like this, too. For me, "Lobby Games" and "Shared World" games all fall under the MMO category, but I can see how in official "gaming terms" this is not correct. I feel more at east now, though, knowing that isn't just me... That the game was always like this. However, I am concerned about the following (I have to reread everything now X)):
This isn't a matter of "official" gaming terms. There is nothing official about any of them nor is their universal agreement on their meaning and application. Claimed legitimacy doesn't by necessity establish it.
So, take such declarations with a bit of salt, as you will see a wide variety in the usage of these terms between posters.
Regardless, the two categories I use most are games I enjoy and games I don't, as the remaining details aren't all that important to me.
Such nonsense. Let me help.
Dogs
Cats
MMOs
WOW
EVE
ESO
Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
BTW, you not agreeing or caring has no bearing on the fact of the matter.
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
Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game would be the proper sub genre, as it is definitely not considered a MMO except by those who intentionally misuse the term.
Yes, this is a hill I'm always willing to die on in my never ending quest to stomp out ignorance in gaming forums everywhere.
You can't see me, but I'm in the back seat here.
(though I do see you in the back seat)
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Multiplayer Game - There are other people I can play with.
Massive Multiplayer Game - There are a bunch of people around me pissing me off.
Regardless if anyone aggresses with this, or not, it is my non-negotiable certified and sealed, doctor approved personal interpretation of what these terms means, and thus beyond any reproach.
Just in case anyone was wondering how they look in these discussions.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But yeah, I still love the game... Even if it is sh*t compared to it's younger cousin, but argh... I can't let go of something so precious. TSWL is everything I've ever wanted out of any game. It's dark, gloomy, mysterious, tall and handsome...
Wow, never noticed I'm this much chatty, and sometimes even redundant... apologies
Yep, I too loved the game, still do in a sense, its memory.
About labels, I agree with Knight and Torval, no "official" or sanctified definition is out there so it's more just marketing.
As a matter of fact, I believe this last decade will get into marketing textbooks as an example (those books are full of examples and case studies...) since it was an interesting up and down curve.
On the first few years companies labeled everything, which contained online parts, as MMO since "MMO might be faded but is still a trendy buzzword".
Then the second half of the decade, due to the overuse of the term and also the popularity drop of the genre itself they went the opposite direction of "no, no, our game definitely ain't an MMO"
Richard Garriott and Raph Koster both said the threshold for being an MMOG was 250 players within the same virtual environment.
[...]
But really, anything that supports more than 128 players in the same virtual environment could be considered an MMOG because "massively" is subjective.
[...]
Likewise, there are very few massively mutliplayer features in MMOGs. Outside of PvP, what content even makes use of 128+ players?!?!?!
(I agree with camel's post, the edit is just for emphasis)
Since OP mentioned earlier in the thread the need and liking of territorial pvp with numbers, I thought to rub a pinch more salt into it...
Once upon a time, in a place called Fusang, Illuminati decided to take one of the facilities: https://youtu.be/zh4iGJM1Ejw
There does exist a small group of players, like myself, who will keep asking for genuinely massively multiplayer games. We see it as a feature, the unique selling point, of the genre. We love the sheer scale of it! And we see the massive potential of embracing that feature, making real use of it to deliver experiences you literally can't find elsewhere. However, being such a small group, its unlikely we'll get many games made for us until the technology required to make such games becomes much easier to develop.
Hm, yeah, I love MMORPGs because of the sheer scale! I love having a lot of people around me that I can potentially annoy and hang with. I like having a big family, haha. The more, the merrier! I had so much fun with Warhammer Online exactly for this reason. But yeah, it is a very expensive venture for something that might not pay out well in the end...
Yes, this is a hill I'm always willing to die on in my never ending quest to stomp out ignorance in gaming forums everywhere.
You can't see me, but I'm in the back seat here.
I can see how "games" like "TSWL" are not considered MMOs to people who have been familiar with them from the get-go. But I think for normies like myself anything other than "MMO" will cause unnecessary confusion...
Some of those terms can be qualified, some can't and are subjective. I don't consider WoW or ESO to be true MMORPGs. They're far too instanced, layered, and segmented to be an MMORPG. The last real MMORPGs were games like Lineage, EQ, EVE, and Asheron's Call. They offer massive player concurrency with little to no instancing or zoning.
This is interesting. See, this is probably the reason why I don't understand how games like "TSWL" cannot be qualified as "MMOs", since i completely missed out on playing actual ACTUAL MMOs. Apparently I have never played MMOs my whole life... My whole life... has been... a lie....
I might even call them MMOs in a conversation because derailing a topic with this doesn't really go anywhere product and isn't a hill I'll personally die on.
I-I'll have to agree with this, too, all this talk about "what makes an MMO" does make it more confusing. I'm all for establishing clarity and consistency in things, and I think adding more "possible" genres will cause agitation and confusion to a lot of "normies" or "new" MMO players alike. It's a great discussion, and no doubt you're right, but I think for the sake of simplicity it's better to just call them "MMOs". A lot of peope (myself included) will not think about "is this an MMO... or a Shared World Action Based Combat Instance Lobby Game???" That's just not on our minds when we're looking for an MMO. We just want to play a game with other players that isn't co-op, so we'll look for anything labeled as "MMOs". Don't shoot the messenger.
Multiplayer Game - There are other people I can play with.
Massive Multiplayer Game - There are a bunch of people around me pissing me off.
Regardless if anyone aggresses with this, or not, it is my non-negotiable certified and sealed, doctor approved personal interpretation of what these terms means, and thus beyond any reproach.
Just in case anyone was wondering how they look in these discussions.
I'm sorry guys, but I'm declaring Ungood as the winner of this debate... His last delivery was just so epic and I'm a sucker for words...
About labels, I agree with Knight and Torval, no "official" or sanctified definition is out there so it's more just marketing.
As a matter of fact, I believe this last decade will get into marketing textbooks as an example (those books are full of examples and case studies...) since it was an interesting up and down curve.
On the first few years companies labeled everything, which contained online parts, as MMO since "MMO might be faded but is still a trendy buzzword".
Then the second half of the decade, due to the overuse of the term and also the popularity drop of the genre itself they went the opposite direction of "no, no, our game definitely ain't an MMO"
I do believe this is closest to the truth of the matter. I've never heard of (buzz)words like "Shared World Action Based RPG" my entire life having played MMOs (that being said, I've never frequented an MMO forum either, so...) Sure, they were used to describe what the game was like in terms of gameplay, but not to which "official" genre it belonged to. As far as I know, every game that enables you to play on a server with other players is an "MMO". (BLASPHEMY! ) How do you know how many people are on one server at a time? There has to be over 128+, even for games like ArcheAge (I still get newsletters monthly from this game and I am pretty sure the devs would have dropped it by now if it didn't have more than 128+ active players). But then again, I'm a simple gal and I obviously don't know anything.
Once upon a time, in a place called Fusang, Illuminati decided to take one of the facilities: https://youtu.be/zh4iGJM1Ejw
(sorry Faileas )
M-My intial impression of you has been shattered, Po_ogg. I did not think you had it in you, but... YOU ARE SUCH A CRUEL MEANIE, PO_OGG *slaps you*!! >:(
Once upon a time, in a place called Fusang, Illuminati decided to take one of the facilities: https://youtu.be/zh4iGJM1Ejw
(sorry Faileas )
M-My intial impression of you has been shattered, Po_ogg. I did not think you had it in you, but... YOU ARE SUCH A CRUEL MEANIE, PO_OGG *slaps you*!! >:(
I'm just pulling your leg - metaphysically, that is, Montag-style
Ah, that Illuminati archive... H.J. is such a troll.
(and the meanies were handled already by a certain cartoon band in a Yellow Submarine, as I remember)
Honestly, I wasn't even too fond of the pvp side of the game, just went there when I needed an outfit, etc., or when there was an event, like the golem hunt - yep, Funcom thought it's a "fun" idea to put seasonal events into the pvp area.
Once upon a time, in a place called Fusang, Illuminati decided to take one of the facilities: https://youtu.be/zh4iGJM1Ejw
(sorry Faileas )
M-My intial impression of you has been shattered, Po_ogg. I did not think you had it in you, but... YOU ARE SUCH A CRUEL MEANIE, PO_OGG *slaps you*!! >:(
I'm just pulling your leg - metaphysically, that is, Montag-style
Ah, that Illuminati archive... H.J. is such a troll.
(and the meanies were handled already by a certain cartoon band in a Yellow Submarine, as I remember)
Honestly, I wasn't even too fond of the pvp side of the game, just went there when I needed an outfit, etc., or when there was an event, like the golem hunt - yep, Funcom thought it's a "fun" idea to put seasonal events into the pvp area.
The whole definition of 250 or 128 for an MMORPG is meaningless. Most are so instanced, at most times you see less than 50 on screen in combat areas.
By their definition, many MMORPGS we play would not make the label.
That is exactly it all these definitions completely lose their relevance when people are playing in groups and enjoying their games how they want. I was always a bit miffed when I played SWTOR thinking well 105 people on the top right is too little for an MMORPG but I was getting a group any time I needed one and it occurred to me that fundamentally nothing had changed and I was probably interacting with the same number of people I would have when I was playing Everquest in 1999. All the rest is just noise anyway.
Comments
Sure you may have quite a few text stops to make, but typically you read such text as an introduction to a quest or on a quest ending. You are likely back in a hub of some sort dealing with all your in-between activities, hardly a chore. You will be selling drops to my word, having to read a couple of lines of text. Oh the horror!
It gladdens me to know that we're on the same wavelength, Ungood.
This isn't a matter of "official" gaming terms. There is nothing official about any of them nor is their universal agreement on their meaning and application. Claimed legitimacy doesn't by necessity establish it.
So, take such declarations with a bit of salt, as you will see a wide variety in the usage of these terms between posters.
Regardless, the two categories I use most are games I enjoy and games I don't, as the remaining details aren't all that important to me.
I'll go back reading the info shared here. I'm learning a lot
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Awesome! Makes me happy to hear that someone can at least gain something useful from my Thread. I'm learning a lot this way, too.
Yes, this is a hill I'm always willing to die on in my never ending quest to stomp out ignorance in gaming forums everywhere.
You can't see me, but I'm in the back seat here.
"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
Dogs
Cats
MMOs
WOW
EVE
ESO
Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
BTW, you not agreeing or caring has no bearing on the fact of the matter.
"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
(though I do see you in the back seat)
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
Massive Multiplayer Game - There are a bunch of people around me pissing me off.
Regardless if anyone aggresses with this, or not, it is my non-negotiable certified and sealed, doctor approved personal interpretation of what these terms means, and thus beyond any reproach.
Just in case anyone was wondering how they look in these discussions.
(I agree with camel's post, the edit is just for emphasis)
I'm a visual learner and this makes SO much sense to me!
By their definition, many MMORPGS we play would not make the label.