Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is this game really an MMO?
Yamota
Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
To answer that question I think you need to define, at a rudimentary level, what is an MMO?
I would say that the one most important aspect of an MMO is that the world is persistant. I.e. you log of but the "world lives on".
In STO the only thing that is persistant is your character and equipment (including ships). Everything else in the "world" is static and instanced. Starbases, planets, PvP maps, missions, EVERYTHING else is static, instanced and unchangeable. If you log of and then log back in, the ONLY thing that may have changed are other characters, nothing else. There are no variables that decide how well the war is going, or how a planet is faring, they are all static and unchangeable.
In this sense is the game really different from say Diablo 2, played on BNET? There the only thing that was persistant was also your character and your equipment and everything else was static and instanced. Sure, here you are constantly connected to a graphical world when playing but that is just cosmetical as in Diablo 2 you were connected to a chat lobby.
So really, is this game an MMO? I would say no.
EDIT: Just want to clarify that I am talking about the definition of the term MMORPG. Obiously this site considers the game to be an MMO or it would not be listed here so I am not challenging their definition.
Comments
Well, it is possible that it is closer to what Guildwars is than most other MMOs.
But let's face it, few MMOs are actually persistent. If you log on to Wow things will be the same as things were yesterday too (well, a few different mobs might be up but that is it). A few games like Eve are different but right now is it only in sandbox games that what you do affects the game (well some games like AoC have a small persistent part, in AoCs case the guildcity).
Some games that are either regular themparks or themeparks with sandbox parts where the world do changes are in production, Guildwars 2 is probably the one you have heard most about. We will hear a lot more about games like that in the future.
So I would still say that STO is a MMO even if it is an instanced one in style with Guildwars and DDO. There should really be many sub classes to MMO because they differs a lot.
this game is as much an mmo as Guild Wars is, the only difference is the monthly fee AND an item mall with more then just cosmetic stuff
Like mister said if this is an mmo so is guild wars, global agenda and games like that.
Is this game really an MMO? Yes. Is it YOUR kind of MMO? Clearly not... which is certainly no fault on your part...
...starting several diffrent threads to make the same point over and over on the other hand...
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
It's an MMO due to the player base. Unfortunately a heavily exploited player base.
You obviously haven't explored the site's extensive game list very thoroughly. I suggest you start with Shot Online, a golf simulator in which you can choose to play one of five characters (not classes, characters, already named for you). Even the OFFICIAL review says, "This is not an MMORPG."
But it's listed here!
You obviously haven't explored the site's extensive game list very thoroughly. I suggest you start with Shot Online, a golf simulator in which you can choose to play one of five characters (not classes, characters, already named for you). Even the OFFICIAL review says, "This is not an MMORPG."
But it's listed here!
Take it up with mmorpg.com, and are you supporting the myth that STO is NOT an mmorpg?
""Does it meet our requirements?
Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot of them and sometimes they get overlooked.
The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
The game must contain some form of advancement.""
Nope, not at all. I don't care for the game, but I think any suggestion that it's not a MMORPG has to rely on an impossibly narrow definition of the term.
But you made an incredibly rude post (you must not understand the term "psychosis" if you think it wasn't), and then you made a point that hinged on the mistaken belief that every game this site lists qualifies as an MMORPG.
Guild wars is on the list. Does that make it an MMORPG?
On a more serious note though, charging a fee doesn't make a game an MMO, I am pretty sure the list of failed games mentions a game that tried that trick and, well failed because it wasn't an mmo. I am not sure if Monster Hunter Tri "western" version will have a fee or not, but I was under the impression that the monster hunter games are not considered MMOs, or maybe they are and just not covered much outside of Japan.
You would have to use a narrow definition of the word to exclude STO from an MMO. I guess my general rule of the thumb is that the game didn't turn on when i started the game in OB... it was always on, so to speak, and people playing it when I wasn't. The problem is, that by iteself doesnt' define an MMO well either because most of the Facebook games are always on too and those aren't really MMOs.
I think defining an MMO would be an interested article, but it would seem strange to me, as someone who did not like STO enough to pay for it, although I did like it on some level, that STO would be excluded from MMOs.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
can i point out to all referencing guild wars, that guild wars isn't an mmo and has never claimed to be such, but then they never charged the monthly sub
Nah, STO isn't an MMORPG it's a MOG. It falls inline with Guildwars, just with a monthly fee tacked on and less content.
Please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.
Fortune favours the bold.
I think there is a difference between an MMO and an MMORPG. It's the RPG part.
MMO = massively multiple online game -- what qualifies as "massive"? 50 players? 100? surely a 1000? What is the most that can inhabit the same instance or "land" in STO? Is that massive?
RPG = Role Playing Game -- these almost always have persistent worlds, and the game is you playing the "role" you want to play in that environment. Typically these provide multiple types of characters, and multiple activities to choose from. So my "role" could be an archer character that also bakes pies, or some such.
I was disappointed in STO as an RPG because there is no choosing what "role" you can be, and also there is not really a persistent world that you can "live" in; unless you are satisfied that you want to play the role of a ship captain in a war, with combat being the main or only activity. In that sense, any single person shooter is also an RPG.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Yes I would agree with that. Multiplayer Online Game is a much more fitting description as the "massive" element really never materialises more than it does in games like Diablo or other multiplayer online games.
Also the "persistant world" element also does not materialse. E.g. there is a war between Klingons and Federation but is that war persistant? Can it be affected in any way by the players? Are there territories that can be won and lost? No.
My gaming blog
I define games like PotBS as "Graphical Lobby Games" where the 'Lobby' is the Travel Map.
You wait there to go to an instance to actually play the game.
Really, they are not much different to a Forum and the way you see the main forum before going to a sub forum an then a thread.
Games like Champions Online are "Managed Instance Directors". Essentually, the engine simply manages hundreds of different instances and automatically assigns players to them. Players also have the option to manually over-ride this system if they need to.
It is the same as a lobby for a game like Battlefield or Counter Strike but has been automated.
Should it be classed as an MMO?
I would say this depends on how many players are allowed per instance?
MMORPG.com rules say 500 players per server...which is a loophole allowing these games to be listed as MMOs.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I didn't think they did either but someone further back said if its on the site, its an MMO except Guild Wars is on this site. However, Guild Wars was presented, clearly so I think, as an alternative to fee based MMOs so they were definitely out to compete with those games.
As for the loophole, well if they throw everyone on one server, but the most people you see in one place is maybe 20 people... but you know there are 100s, maybe thousands playing hard to say.
parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.
Some people here need to realize that what an MMO is to them does not define the term, it only highlights their expectations out of the genre. The term MMO means "massive multiplayer online". All of these games are online multiplayer games. The term 'massive' is HIGHLY subjective. Some people seem to think that the term only applies to having thousands of players all in one area. However I cannot think of a single MMO that can handle such a feat atm.
As was pointed out, even the expectation of a persistent world is a rare feature amongst most MMOs. The more successful ones are just better at distracting players from that fact.
The game is an MMO. There shouldn't really be any debate over this. The more important questions would be "is it a good one?" or "is this one worth playing?".
The highlighted sentences sums up this argument perfectly. There is no quantitative ideal that breaks down whether a game is a multiplayer or a MMO. The only true quantitative requirement is that at least more than 1 person must be playing at a time. That is what separates Multiplayer games from single player games. And, MMO's are a form of multiplayer game.
Now, as you stated, "'massive' is HIGHLY subjective." That is so true. This is why there is no true requirement for an MMO except, again, that it requires at least more than one player playing at a time. Yet, individuals go about and try to use their own definitions of what an MMO is to attempt to deface specific MMO's, which fits with their ulterior motives. Those motives usually revolve around attempting to prop up their current MMO through defacing another.
well if you take sto and guildwars as comparisons then diablo was, and is, an mmo too right ?
Instanced get together like stations, towns only in diablo they were non graphical and chat rooms but is there any difference except you can walk around in a 3d environment and buy from npc's ? The principle is the same.
The rest is all instanced, like diablo was though at least with diablo every instance had a coop possibility.
I guess games like sto and guildwars are more coop games then mmo's. They just call them mmo coz of the infrastructure used while they arent any different from coop games or any different from its predecesor diablo.
The definition of words cannot be entirely subjective. If a person says "bird" then people need to have a common understanding on how a bird is defined and if it has several meanings or not.
MMO or MMORPG is a term that I feel definetely needs a proper definition as many game developer companies release multiplayer online games and then claim it is an MMO and they can do that since there is no strict definition for it. I think one is needed.
As for being good or not, that is an entirely different debate. One which you are free to make your own thread about as what I am trying to get at is that the word MMO is being used far too frequently so that the meaning has become dilluted and unclear.
If we go by Wikipedias definition:
MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.
Does STO really fit into there? Does the world really evolve while the player is away. I really dont feel it does as nothing in this game, beside player characters, are actually changeable and persistant. Everything else is static and/or instanced. The planets, the starbases, the war. All of it is static and unchangeable and does not evolve over time. STO simply does not have any variables that can be changed over time (beside your character).
My gaming blog
The definition of words cannot be entirely subjective. If a person says "bird" then people need to have a common understanding on how a bird is defined and if it has several meanings or not.
MMO or MMORPG is a term that I feel definetely needs a proper definition as many game developer companies release multiplayer online games and then claim it is an MMO and they can do that since there is no strict definition for it. I think one is needed.
As for being good or not, that is an entirely different debate. One which you are free to make your own thread about as what I am trying to get at is that the word MMO is being used far too frequently so that the meaning has become dilluted and unclear.
If we go by Wikipedias definition:
MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world, usually hosted by the game's publisher, which continues to exist and evolve while the player is away from the game.
Does STO really fit into there? Does the world really evolve while the player is away. I really dont feel it does as nothing in this game, beside player characters, are actually changeable and persistant. Everything else is static and/or instanced. The planets, the starbases, the war. All of it is static and unchangeable and does not evolve over time. STO simply does not have any variables that can be changed over time (beside your character).
Bird = noun
Massive = adjective
Different parts of language.
A noun is inherently factual as it is there. A bird is a bird... it exists where you see it. A car is a car... it exists where you see it.
Adjective is inherently subjective as its purpose is to describe a noun or a verb. Therefore, it is subjective as it is based on the interpretation of the person who is describing.
"The green car." Green is describing what color the car is. However, someone may be color blind and might not be able to see grey instead of green. Or, someone may see it as a different color.
"The car is massive." To the person describing the car it may seem massive. However, someone else may interpret the car as being merely large or bigger than average.
All based on the interpretation of each individual.
And, wikipedia's definition is flawed. There's no set number to differentiate whether Muliplayer game X is an MMO or just simply a multiplayer game. Also, you are taking that definition to whole new bounds. Based on what you think that definition says, pretty much every MMORPG besides PvP-centric MMO's is not an MMO. Nothing in WoW changes. Nothing in LoTRO truly changes. Etc...
I believe that the part about continuous evolvement of an MMORPG even while the player is away is referencing the patches that are added by the developers, the changing economy (which, STO's is still evolving itself), etc... All MMORPG's PvE systems truly never change unless the developers want it to change through patches.
Either way, despite you and others' continual attempts at defacing this game, STO is still an MMORPG. /thread
Personally it felt more like a console game with an online community to chat with.
Getting too old for this $&17!
Whoa. Jesus? Is that you? I didn't know you played MMO's. jk.
Getting too old for this $&17!
STO is most definitely not an MMORPG, it is most definitely an MMO.
What is the difference - an MMORPG in the traditional sense is a seamless, large, persistent world game with limited instancing and all or many of the various trappings (crafting, housing, etc). But it seems MMORPGs are giving way of late to a new creature, MMOs, which take the massively multiplayer part and the idea of persistence and progression (even if only in part) and make a new genre very similar to traditional MMORPGs but not quite the same.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Seriously, all of these "STO is not an MMO" or "STO is not an RPG" crap posts are getting tiresome. It is an MMORPG. That is fact. If you don't like it.... tough.