Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Who are you to decide what a real mmo is ?
Andr4599
Member Posts: 99
This is a question to the old angry elfs on this site, the old elfs that keeps telling us that games like wow is no real mmo, and only games like UO,SWG can label thier game Mmorpg.
My question is to you(its simple and easy to answer), who are YOU do DECIDE and tell others what a real mmo is ?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
odd, WoW very clearly is an MMO, as is Eve, EQ, both versions as far as i know, the criteria for labelling a game a MMO is probably a bit vague, Guildwars themselves only labelled their own game an ORPG, even though some do class it as an MMO, im not sure personally, i think ideally, an MMO should be any game that allows a minimum of 1000 players on a single server, if that figure does not include instances or phasing.. admittedly that does put EQ2 in a bit of an iffy position, is it really an MMO.. as it does use phasing a lot. well.. maybe..
odd, WoW very clearly is an MMO, as is Eve, EQ, both versions as far as i know, the criteria for labelling a game a MMO is probably a bit vague, Guildwars themselves only labelled their own game an ORPG, even though some do class it as an MMO, im not sure personally, i think ideally, an MMO should be any game that allows a minimum of 1000 players on a single server, if that figure does not include instances or phasing.. admittedly that does put EQ2 in a bit of an iffy position, is it really an MMO.. as it does use phasing a lot. well.. maybe..
Don't really recalling anyone saying WOW isn't an MMO, heck its even a decent MMORPG.
Games like GW's not so much, don't consider games designed around virtual chat room areas as traditional MMO's.
But I don't recall telling anyone that their game isn't an MMO, but have offered the opinion that in my eyes some games don't fit the traditional model very well.
Now, whether WOW is a virtual world vs UO or SWG might be somewhat debateable, though I think it does a pretty good job in that department. Many other games pretty much fail in this department though, such as AOC, WOW, CO etc, as they are more games than worlds. (which is not a bad thing for those who prefer them)
As to who am I to tell you whats an MMO, I'm your elder youngster, and you are supposed to respect us!
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm mystified if this is genuine retardedness or a clever troll whose purpose I can't decode.
I stand by this old simple definition: If >= 500 people can play in one spot at the same time together, its an MMO game
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
All whom has not forgotten what SOE did to their game SWG
I7@4ghz, 5970@ 1 ghz/5ghz, water cooled||Former setups Byggblogg||Byggblogg 2|| Msi Wind u100
Who am i? I am a paying subscriber. I CHOOSE the company that services my needs the best. Massive world with little to no instancing, world pvp and freedom.
you should then join us in wurm online. you dont have to pay for what you want.
I7@4ghz, 5970@ 1 ghz/5ghz, water cooled||Former setups Byggblogg||Byggblogg 2|| Msi Wind u100
actually I said (and maybe this was the reason for this post) WoW didn't feel like a MMO to mem, neither did games like Guild Wars, AOC and Aion, and many other "MMOs" out there
To me a MMO should feel like a living world, with danger and adventure around every corner. to me themepark games aren't MMOs (TO ME) they hold your hand too much and try to take all the danger and penalties out of the game.
TO ME a MMO has ...
interdependancy
non instanced player housing
at least somewhat of an open class system
players who have to work together
games nowadays are way too linear and while technically they have everything that makes them MMOs they just don't have the engrossing world feel to me.
TO ME.
the Evil Raider that outgears you and makes you cry for welfare epics on the forums.
I have evey right, as do you, to offer an opinion about what I consider to be an MMO.
I do not think however that anyone is saying WOW is not an MMO. I think you are confusing playstyle comparisons with game types. Maybe sandbox to theme park or aomething along those lines.
WOW is an MMO in the traditional sense that many people can play together. But it differs from some of the other and older games in many respects. Whether these differences are good or bad is the part where personal opinions start to come into it. I may not think a game where you can level to cap without any ineraction with other players (other than throug an auction house) is a good mmo. That does not mean I don't thinks it is an mmo just not a good one. Your opinion may be different and thats OK. I respect it and you should return the favor.
yes it does have the technical "specs" to be a MMORPG
its Massive as in lots of players on one server
Multi-player - same as above
online - well obviously
RPG - yes you do play a role in a game
however and again to me MMORPG means a living breathing engrossing world, thats why i say UO and SWG (havent played EVE) are the only TRUE MMORPGs i have played.
the Evil Raider that outgears you and makes you cry for welfare epics on the forums.
Nobody really cares what the grognards think is an MMO. All they care about is "what's fun?"
Are you really going to listen to some guy going, "Oh my god, it's not really massive, stop having fun!" about the game you're playing?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
yes it does have the technical "specs" to be a MMORPG
its Massive as in lots of players on one server
Multi-player - same as above
online - well obviously
RPG - yes you do play a role in a game
however and again to me MMORPG means a living breathing engrossing world, thats why i say UO and SWG (havent played EVE) are the only TRUE MMORPGs i have played.
I really do not see how you can say that UO and SWG had a 'living breathing engrossing world' since my definition of 'living breathing engrossing world' includes things those games obviously did not have.
MMORPG
Is it massive?
Is it multiplayer?
Is it an RPG?
If you've answered no to any of these, what you've got is not an MMORPG.
i would hope not, im not trying to convince you to change your opinion at all. I am just stating my opinion. if you are having fun, fantastic glad you found your thing.
the Evil Raider that outgears you and makes you cry for welfare epics on the forums.
yes it does have the technical "specs" to be a MMORPG
its Massive as in lots of players on one server
Multi-player - same as above
online - well obviously
RPG - yes you do play a role in a game
however and again to me MMORPG means a living breathing engrossing world, thats why i say UO and SWG (havent played EVE) are the only TRUE MMORPGs i have played.
I really do not see how you can say that UO and SWG had a 'living breathing engrossing world' since my definition of 'living breathing engrossing world' includes things those games obviously did not have.
then well i guess we have different definitions of living breathing engrossing world.
what games in your opinion have living breathing worlds
the Evil Raider that outgears you and makes you cry for welfare epics on the forums.
http://www.planetcalypso.com/home/ check this bad boy out for a good mmo world
And i CHOOSE the company which makes a fun game. And well made 5/10/25 man instances are fun and apparently 11M others agree.
odd, WoW very clearly is an MMO, as is Eve, EQ, both versions as far as i know, the criteria for labelling a game a MMO is probably a bit vague, Guildwars themselves only labelled their own game an ORPG, even though some do class it as an MMO, im not sure personally, i think ideally, an MMO should be any game that allows a minimum of 1000 players on a single server, if that figure does not include instances or phasing.. admittedly that does put EQ2 in a bit of an iffy position, is it really an MMO.. as it does use phasing a lot. well.. maybe..
Don't really recalling anyone saying WOW isn't an MMO, heck its even a decent MMORPG.
Games like GW's not so much, don't consider games designed around virtual chat room areas as traditional MMO's.
But I don't recall telling anyone that their game isn't an MMO, but have offered the opinion that in my eyes some games don't fit the traditional model very well.
Now, whether WOW is a virtual world vs UO or SWG might be somewhat debateable, though I think it does a pretty good job in that department. Many other games pretty much fail in this department though, such as AOC, WOW, CO etc, as they are more games than worlds. (which is not a bad thing for those who prefer them)
As to who am I to tell you whats an MMO, I'm your elder youngster, and you are supposed to respect us!
Seriously Ky? The butthurt is so obvious every other thread it's not funny...
The argument? Trollish... WoW is not a MMO because it has instances. WoW is not a RPG because nobody roleplays or groups together. WoW is also not a true MMO (when they compare it to their god, Everquest, usually) because it's not "Hardcore" in using death penalties (loss of xp, time, corpse runs, ect). WoW is not a MMORPG because it is a Theme Park as compared to camp&grind spots for xp.
That's pretty much been the epic argument and how it "ruined the genre".
It's ironic that the zealots who hate theme park games DEMAND a new game that confines you to strict rules to make you play their way.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
If anyone here hasn't read about a million times that WOW isn't a real MMO, they can't read English=) Its almost like people get paid to smear WOW a certain number of times per day in order to earn some sort of commision.
Basically popular opinion decides whats what. So someone calling WOW not a real MMO for example is meaningless. GW or Global Agenda would have a much harder time fitting all the catagories that make MMOs what they are. If you're missing too many of those features, its harder to justify.
And i CHOOSE the company which makes a fun game. And well made 5/10/25 man instances are fun and apparently 11M others agree.
"Fun" to you is "boring, non-challenging, and non-immersive" to me. Sure, 11 million people may play WoW and enjoy it (my 63 year old aunt is one of them......), but that doesn't mean it's the "best".
AOL online had the most subscribers for the longest time, and anyone with half a brain who knew anything about computers knew to avoid it like the plague. Just because it had the most people subscribed to it, certainly does not make it the best.
Simple really, I have good taste, nuff said.
And i CHOOSE the company which makes a fun game. And well made 5/10/25 man instances are fun and apparently 11M others agree.
"Fun" to you is "boring, non-challenging, and non-immersive" to me. Sure, 11 million people may play WoW and enjoy it (my 63 year old aunt is one of them......), but that doesn't mean it's the "best".
AOL online had the most subscribers for the longest time, and anyone with half a brain who knew anything about computers knew to avoid it like the plague. Just because it had the most people subscribed to it, certainly does not make it the best.
Well, doesn't it make it the best for them?
I mean, you can say all you want that something with x, y and z is the best but if no one likes it then who is it the best for? Well you of course but no one else.
if 10,000 people are saying that something is great and 5 are telling them they are wrong I would find it hard to refute that the 5 might just be missing something or just can't sign into the features that the 10,000 enjoy.
There are a lot of things that have far greater design and scope than your average content. Whether it be in movies, books, music, or games.
But if no one wants it then all that design and scope really doesn't do anything for its cause.
It also seems a bit full of hubris for anyone to say "well, they don't know. If they did then they would want somethng more".
Possibly. I realize there is a lot to the world and slowly but surely we tend to discover things, sometimes in spite of ourselves.
A good example was way back in college when I was teaching guitar. I ended up getting an older gentleman... probably about early 60's who wanted to play the guitar and wanted to play country songs. Now, I didn' say "well, you are wasting your time as those songs are simplistic and have no real depth". I just said "ok" if that is what you want to do then here is what we need to work on".
However, he didn't sing. So I said to him "well, if you can't sing the melody then we will have to have you work on music that encompasses melody in the guitar part which means you will have to work on some different type of music before we can have you work on arrangements. I gave him some simple rennaissance pieces. He loved them. Went nuts.
And he worked hard. He then bought a better guitar and signed himself up for a summer guitar workshop.
Had I initially said "no" he might not have taken from me and he might not have discovered a different type of music.
I think people will open themselves up to greater things when they are ready and they tend not to like being forced to do something, no matter how someone says it's better.
And sometimes they just want to play country music and that is what makes them happy.
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
And i CHOOSE the company which makes a fun game. And well made 5/10/25 man instances are fun and apparently 11M others agree.
"Fun" to you is "boring, non-challenging, and non-immersive" to me. Sure, 11 million people may play WoW and enjoy it (my 63 year old aunt is one of them......), but that doesn't mean it's the "best".
AOL online had the most subscribers for the longest time, and anyone with half a brain who knew anything about computers knew to avoid it like the plague. Just because it had the most people subscribed to it, certainly does not make it the best.
What if a game has all those subscribers AND critical praise from every media outlet AND praise from the entire professional MMO development community?
What if another game has a fraction of the playerbase, little to no critical praise and most professional developers also have little to no interest in it?
Which qualifies as a better game then? What can make the less poplar, less praised, less overall enjoyed game a better game? 1 person's opinion?
You could claim the millions don't know any better. If you placed 1000 random people in front of WOW, UO and EVE or DF for a few hours, which game would the vast majority of them prefer? Then ask yourself why. Are they all crazy? Are they all clueless? They're trying all those games together and they're going to prefer 1 of them a lot more than the others. Why?
I understand what you're trying to say. I guess my point is this:
Are there a lot more casual/carebear people in this world, or are there more "hardcore" players that enjoy more intense risk verse reward aspects of a game and more player freedom?
The answer is obviously not the latter. Why do you think WoW has 11 million (or whatever the hell it is) subscribers? Is it because it's the " best " game out there or does it appeal to the most people? It obviously appeals to the most people, because most people can't handle too much player freedom, and most people can't handle harsh risks. WoW attracts, for the most part, people who like to have their hand held through the game, and who cannot handle losing their gear, or having death penalties, etc.
Point of the matter is, MMOs started off with a lot of player freedom and risk, seen in many "sandbox" style MMOs, but over time the genre evolved into more themepark MMOs where player freedom was restricted and instead game mechanics replaced previously controlled player aspects of gameplay. These themepark MMOs can, again, attract much more people to that type of game.
I'm just happy that developers are starting to break away from the "norm" and cater to those of us that are NOT in the majority, because we're missing what we feel are the good aspects of MMOs and what we grew up with as older gamers, that have been either completely replaced or watered down with the current market of MMOs.
What if a game has all those subscribers AND critical praise from every media outlet AND praise from the entire professional MMO development community?
What if another game has a fraction of the playerbase, little to no critical praise and most professional developers also have little to no interest in it?
Which qualifies as a better game then? What can make the less poplar, less praised, less overall enjoyed game a better game? 1 person's opinion?
You could claim the millions don't know any better. If you placed 1000 random people in front of WOW, UO and EVE or DF for a few hours, which game would the vast majority of them prefer? Then ask yourself why. Are they all crazy? Are they all clueless? They're trying all those games together and they're going to prefer 1 of them a lot more than the others. Why?
I guess see my above post. And I think most people would choose WoW in regards to your question, because most people can't handle the kind of MMOs that started this genre. It doesn't mean they are clueless, it doesn't mean they are crazy, it simply means they cannot handle the other types of games for a variety of reasons and in turn they "don't like" them.
Do I think my 63 year old aunt who plays World of Warcraft would last 5 minutes in Darkfall?
Absolutely no way in hell, and I wouldn't want it any other way.