Looking for something to play.

Siveria

I'm looking for a new mmorpg to play, Graphics don't rank high on my priority list, I want something that feels a bit unique and not the wow-like trash that most mmorpgs end up being today. I don't mind a grind either, as back when I played mmorpgs or started to play them it was about the journey not about how fast you could rush to level cap to start pointless raiding for gear that has no more purpose. Some mmo's I have played.

DAoC

WoW

FF11 and 14

Dungeon Fighter Online

Redmoon

Lineage 2

Rappelz

Fly for Fun

Aura Kingdom

Many others as well that there names elude me atm as there is so many. I'm looking for something with a decent community experience, so that pretty much wipes all modern wow-like mmo's off the table, free or pay to play doesn't matter, though preferable if its f2p its not completly pay2win. I'm just at a loss as to what to try these days as most of the mmorpgs seem like the same crap in a different skin these days.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Phaserlight

Try the one in my sig

Scot

ESO or BDO perhaps?

Amaranthar

Check out Ultima Online. It's an interesting world that you can "just live in." 

Kyleran

Old School RuneScape perhaps?

Dudek28

tzervo said:

- Foxhole: RvR WW2 setting MMO with resettable wars and no progression

- EVE, Albion: full-loot PVP games with robust economies and some safe(r) zones

- Project:Gorgon: quirky PvE "sandbox" with interesting skill system and old graphics

- Naval Action: has both PvE and PvP servers and a unique, deep naval combat system

- Elite:Dangerous: space sim MMO with interesting background simulation system

- Black Desert Online: lots of strong pros (graphics, combat, worker systems) and cons

- A Tale in the Desert: PvE no-combat MMO with social elements

All quite unique in some ways from the WoW formula. Those are the ones that I found fun for varying amounts of time.

I cant believe A Tale in the Desert is still going. 

Is Elite really an MMO?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

madazz

tzervo said:

Dudek28 said:

I cant believe A Tale in the Desert is still going. 

Is Elite really an MMO?

The state of its background simulation is shared and affected by all players simultaneously. You can also have up to 60ish players in an instance of the system you are in, or more in exceptional circumstances (such as in the Distant Worlds expeditions).

You (and the OP) can determine from these whether it is MMO enough for you.

It is not an MMO at all. An MMO is a game that allows a massive quantity of people to interact concurrently in one single shared world. If the game can't host a massive quantity of people in one area together it is most assuredly not an MMO. Elite is a game that cannot host a massive quantity of people together. It zones people out. In fact, when players found an exploit to get more than 60 players into a single zone the developers stated that they (the players) melted the server.

World of Tanks is what started the trend of labeling anything and everything as an MMO. World of Tanks has 30 vs 30 battles, but since there are over arching systems that affect all they tried to misconstrue the meaning of MMO. 

No need for anyone to determine anything when the game doesn't even support Battlefield numbers, which is also not an MMO.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Dammam

tzervo said:

madazz said:

tzervo said:

Dudek28 said:

I cant believe A Tale in the Desert is still going. 

Is Elite really an MMO?

The state of its background simulation is shared and affected by all players simultaneously. You can also have up to 60ish players in an instance of the system you are in, or more in exceptional circumstances (such as in the Distant Worlds expeditions).

You (and the OP) can determine from these whether it is MMO enough for you.

It is not an MMO at all. An MMO is a game that allows a massive quantity of people to interact concurrently in one single shared world. If the game can't host a massive quantity of people in one area together it is most assuredly not an MMO. Elite is a game that cannot host a massive quantity of people together. It zones people out. In fact, when players found an exploit to get more than 60 players into a single zone the developers stated that they (the players) melted the server.

World of Tanks is what started the trend of labeling anything and everything as an MMO. World of Tanks has 30 vs 30 battles, but since there are over arching systems that affect all they tried to misconstrue the meaning of MMO. 

No need for anyone to determine anything when the game doesn't even support Battlefield numbers, which is also not an MMO.

Call it an MMO, don't call it an MMO, I don't really mind and I'm not going to get into this argument because I find it boring and fruitless.

Different people attach a different number and different prerequisites for calling a game an MMO. Devs (Frontier, in this case) give their games labels with marketing in mind.

This is why I described exactly the scale and structure of the interactions and how many players can end up in an instance, so that each reader knows what they get into, independently of semantics arguments.

EDIT: one thing I forgot to mention is that E:D also has a solo mode, again with the same shared state of the background simulation with the whole player base, and the player can swap in/out of open/solo mode each session with the same account.

I appreciate your perspective and I agree it isn't easy coming up with a definition to encompass all MMOs now that so many games from sandboxes to themeparks have been marketed as such. For me as well, the issue with labeling and mis-labeling of MMOs isn't so much about some abstract definition or semantics but a matter of clarifying the expectations people have coming into a game. Unfortunately, even with your description (and mine), someone who hasn't actually played Elite: Dangerous may not understand what to expect. That's what's frustrating about slapping every game with the MMO label and muddying the definition; calling something an MMO just isn't very descriptive these days.

From my experience, Elite: Dangerous generally plays like a single player space sim where the world you engage in, from its economy to the missions you run, are all governed by the underlying game itself. There are skirmishes and dog-fighting involving other players and if that is all the direct multiplayer interaction you are looking for in an MMO then perhaps it is enough. I don't mean to trash it, it's good at what it is. And sure, there are some larger-scale, player-driven initiatives because technically everyone is sharing the same state of the background sim, but this "shared world" feels more like having your own copy of the same instance everyone else has than everyone being in the same instance together. In contrast, a game like Eve Online doesn't have the "flight sim" aspects of Elite but the social, political, and economic parts of the game are directly governed by players and their interactions, and you are always in the same "shared world" as every other player.

Dammam

To answer the OP's question, I think the MMO experience is shaped by the game's community. Games like WoW these days are full of people speed-leveling, raid-logging, and prioritizing things like "parsing" over other activities. Sure, a game's design lends itself to some of these things, but if you find a sizeable community of like-minded gamers who aren't doing that you'll likely end up enjoying yourself even in a game like WoW. In fact, this is even more true for games that aren't WoW-like. Having just mentioned Eve, I think that is a game where your enjoyment and long-term engagement is directly linked to finding the right group of people for you and playing with them. It is an MMO in exactly the sense that your fun is linked to the other players you interact with and how you choose to interact. If that sounds appealing, I won't re-list what many have already listed and simply suggest to look for community-driven games like Eve and see if you can find people you like to play with and virtually hang-out with.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

kitarad

Massively Multiplayer Online has been taken to mean frequently simply everyone playing is online. That makes even games like Diablo an MMO. Each developer decides what they want to call their game and generally even lobby games qualify. Go and quarrel with the way the term has changed over time. We as individuals don't control how words are used. I am not going to die on that hill thank you very much.

You can come and put your 2 cents in on what you think it should be but the gamer world has moved on and generally the acronym has acquired its current meaning and every time you look at a game you have to decide whether the number playing is sufficient for your needs.

Personally I don't like crowded areas fighting for resources or mobs and morons who ruin my day. I like playing with a few people and that was how I played even when I played Everquest or WoW. I always ended up playing with a few choice individuals who enhanced my gaming experience. Rest of the players were just background noise. My guild and members were my whole world as far interaction went. I did meet some nice people from other guilds in Everquest but those days have become few and far between in recent games. I keep to myself and interact very carefully with others much like real life actually. I spent my time twiddling my thumbs for hours in Everquest waiting for a spot so actually playing can be a subjective term in that game when I was merely using the game as a chatroom for far too many hours than I care to admit.

You know the odd thing is a game like City of Heroes with its large groups and even larger when you consider all the pets that come and abilities that spawn effects and the ensuing chaos has taken on the multiplayer concept to a whole other level when we are all fighting in missions. It looks like a raid when 8 masterminds are in the group. I am often reminded of how it was in my early days of raiding as I am making my way through sewers it was very much like the narrow corridors of a dungeon.

It's not the definition that is important but the actual experience of playing with others. I am not concerned about the possibility of playing with every person on a map but rather I want to find just enough people to be my friend and play with me. That is the part of the multiplayer experience that has the most impact and relevance to me.

The way City of Heroes tailors you request for a people to join you also manages to convey your mode of play and it was much better than any bloody PUG in WoW that rush through an instance. So no game can become what you want until you have played it and found enough people to make your day.

Amaranthar

Ok, I'm still confused on what the difference is between an MMO and a regular
old-fashioned Multiplayer game.
What's worse is that now I can add SP games into the mix. 
Is this inflation or deflation? 

Dammam

tzervo said:

Dammam said:

I appreciate your perspective and I agree it isn't easy coming up with a definition to encompass all MMOs now that so many games from sandboxes to themeparks have been marketed as such. For me as well, the issue with labeling and mis-labeling of MMOs isn't so much about some abstract definition or semantics but a matter of clarifying the expectations people have coming into a game. Unfortunately, even with your description (and mine), someone who hasn't actually played Elite: Dangerous may not understand what to expect. That's what's frustrating about slapping every game with the MMO label and muddying the definition; calling something an MMO just isn't very descriptive these days.

From my experience, Elite: Dangerous generally plays like a single player space sim where the world you engage in, from its economy to the missions you run, are all governed by the underlying game itself. There are skirmishes and dog-fighting involving other players and if that is all the direct multiplayer interaction you are looking for in an MMO then perhaps it is enough. I don't mean to trash it, it's good at what it is. And sure, there are some larger-scale, player-driven initiatives because technically everyone is sharing the same state of the background sim, but this "shared world" feels more like having your own copy of the same instance everyone else has than everyone being in the same instance together. In contrast, a game like Eve Online doesn't have the "flight sim" aspects of Elite but the social, political, and economic parts of the game are directly governed by players and their interactions, and you are always in the same "shared world" as every other player.

What is setting expectations more explicitly? Saying that something is or isn't an MMO? Especially when everyone has a different definition of it? Or saying directly: you can have from solo to up to 60 players in the same place and the background sim is shared by everyone? Or your second paragraph, which elaborates even more on that?

"Muddying the definition" there is no such thing. There is also no widely accepted definition for sandbox or RPG or open world, as numerous threads arguing over these terms in this forum and others have proved. All those have spectrums of "more" or "less" of the thing and everyone picks a different point on that spectrum as the hill to die on.

Which is why I say: this is what the game has in terms of interactions/features, call it whatever you like

EDIT: reading again your first paragraph, I am not sure if we agree or not 

I would say we generally agree.

Regarding E:D specifically, I just wanted to add to your description in hopes it helps someone get a better read on how the game feels and decide if it is for them.

Regarding the term MMO more generally, I also find the attempt to nail down a definition fruitless. As kitarad said,

We as individuals don't control how words are used

However, words and categories are useful building blocks with which we reason about things, and vaguely defined words or categories loose this utility. I honestly don't know what to expect when someone calls a game an MMO at this point. You mentioned "spectrums" and I very much agree. All categories have gray areas, but our ability to talk and reason relies on the bounds we are able to place around those. Otherwise, we end up having to describe each thing instead of using a word that does it for us. Sure, I can say "this is a game where you run from side-to-side trying to complete a level by overcoming obstacles through various mechanics like jumping" or I can say "it's a 2D platformer". Of course, there are games that technically fall on the boundary of platformer and something else, and there are plenty of platformers that feel very different from each other, but I still find utility in that word. I don't find it very much with "MMO", which is what I was expressing. Maybe somewhere in there we disagree on something, but it doesn't seem particularly significant.

Kyleran

Amaranthar said:

Ok, I'm still confused on what the difference is between an MMO and a regular
old-fashioned Multiplayer game.
What's worse is that now I can add SP games into the mix. 
Is this inflation or deflation? 

It's like the terms "right" and "wrong"mean whatever people want them to mean.

They are incorrect in their way of thinking of course, but arguing with such generally tends to be useless.

Dammam

Kyleran said:

Amaranthar said:

Ok, I'm still confused on what the difference is between an MMO and a regular
old-fashioned Multiplayer game.
What's worse is that now I can add SP games into the mix. 
Is this inflation or deflation? 

It's like the terms "right" and "wrong"mean whatever people want them to mean.

They are incorrect in their way of thinking of course, but arguing with such generally tends to be useless.

Words are for communicating ideas. If I don't know you and you use a word, how reliably can I trust my understanding of what you are telling me? For some words it can be very reliable and for others not so much. This has nothing to do with whether those words should be used that way or not, but simply because we don't control how other people use language. That inability to control others is precisely why trying to argue definitions in a general setting becomes fruitless, since even after all that effort I can't reliably trust the next person to go by that definition. Of course, if you have a regular group of people you discuss a topic with, it is very fruitful to define your terms and move forward from there so everyone is on the same page. I use terms like "MMO" very effectively with my IRL friends, as we all have a shared understanding of what that means. I just don't find that to be the case in online settings.

vonryan123

Just getting back into GW2 again, it has a nice mix of everything. Also trying fallout76 but not sure I would recommend it.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Dammam

tzervo said:

[--snip--]

This, and similar threads, keep reminding me of the old philosophy exercise "what is a table?"

Absolutely. And much like that question you realize the answer can differ if "table" is the form or the function. We often spend these discussions on the form, whereas I've found the function to be a more useful starting place when looking for a new game to play. What's the game-loop and how do I engage in it? What am I looking to spend my time doing? Do I want a to spend my time generally soloing around other players or one where I have to actively coordinate with a group in voice chat, for example? Starting from the activity itself has not only helped me better find the games I want to play but the people I want to play with.

Depending on how the OP views this, games like GW2 may or may not be WoW-like. I know I didn't play the two games the same way at all.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

KnightFalz

Multi-player I use for games that allow for a quite limited number of players. Many strategy games fall in this category, as well as console games.

MMO I use for games that allow for a larger number of concurrent players but fall short of a MMORPG experience. This is the lion's share of non-solo games.

ValdemarJ

lol re-re-re-re-hashing "what is an mmo" again again again. /smh