MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Originally posted by Jimmy_ScytheThe one thing you all seem to be missing is the main flaw with the MMO model itself: There can be only one. That is, there can only be one game with the largest number of subscribers or players. A crowd draws a crowd and after awhile, the majority of the people that will EVER play an MMO in their life are all collected in one game. This forces the compitition to try and divert the table scraps of that crowd to their own products. This leads to a tight rope where your new game can't be to different, but can't be to similar either.
I disagree with this. It is similar to saying that only one car company can exist because everyone will always buy the best car out there. It is simply not true.
Even say it was true - There's so much money to be made that the MMO scene that people will always be trying for that top spot. The business of MMOs would become like King of the Hill, one toppling the other every so often.
Originally posted by Jimmy_ScytheThe one thing you all seem to be missing is the main flaw with the MMO model itself: There can be only one. That is, there can only be one game with the largest number of subscribers or players. A crowd draws a crowd and after awhile, the majority of the people that will EVER play an MMO in their life are all collected in one game. This forces the compitition to try and divert the table scraps of that crowd to their own products. This leads to a tight rope where your new game can't be to different, but can't be to similar either.
I disagree with this. It is similar to saying that only one car company can exist because everyone will always buy the best car out there. It is simply not true.
Even say it was true - There's so much money to be made that the MMO scene that people will always be trying for that top spot. The business of MMOs would become like King of the Hill, one toppling the other every so often.
And that isn't the case?
Everquest toppled Ultima Online. World of Warcraft toppled Everquest. We're all waiting for a MMO to become a "WoW killer."
Yes, it's true that you don't have to be the most popular to be successful, but the majority of your target market is going to be in the camp of the current king. This is what restricts the genre to the same stale designs that we've been playing since 1999.
Again, free games have a little more room since the number of players is irrelevant. But isn't it telling that the first wave of F2P games were all some variation of Lineage 2 or Ragnarok Online? It's only now that these games are starting to really make an effort to differentiate themselves from their compitition. Now imagine how much slower that process will be with the subscription model.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe And that isn't the case? Everquest toppled Ultima Online. World of Warcraft toppled Everquest. We're all waiting for a MMO to become a "WoW killer."
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
I remember the 1970s. For some reason, everyone started thinking that truck drivers were really cool. CB radios were all the rage. People started using phrases like "10-4 good buddy." /shudder
Then everyone woke up from that nightmare and we try not to talk about it.
That's how I see the world of videogames. We nerds had a good thing going. We were over here playing our fantasy/math/mapping games, having a good time, and then 11.5 million people started thinking that was cool and crashed our party.
I'm hoping they wake up, realize that, like CB radios, this is really a nerdy thing to do, and go away lol. Then I can go back to playing the old school type games with old school gamers.
Yep, breaker-breaker, bring it back, catch ya on the flip flop WoW gamers. This is 505 and I'm clear.
Memories!
Oh, we got a little convoy, truckin' through the night
Yeah, we got a little convoy, ain't she a beautifull sight
Hehehe, my parents even got me a cheapo CB base station for one of my birthdays in the 70's. I don't think I ever talked to anyone on it but after a while one of the dials broke off and it sort of looked like a flying saucer so I carried that broke off dial around with me as my toy spaceship.
But to the point; I don't think you're right about this being a fad which all those new people will forget about. Some will give it up of course but that won't change anything. The hope is that enough of them will start to want deeper games one of these days so that maybe things will begin to improve.
Anyway, keep your fuzz-buster on and don't ride the ass of a lowboy haulin' gravel. Damn, Pig Pen, where'd you say you are? I can still smell them hogs.
lol,
Yeah CB's the internet chat room of the 70's, I remember those days...
Smokie and the Bandit, Every which way but loose even Han Solo was inspired by the 70's trucker archtype.
I still talk on CB all the time.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.- -And on the 8th day, man created God.-
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
I have to step in here, and lay out some really basic, and well known things.
First, what is an MMO? MMO, we use to shorten MMORPG (in most cases) some could argue, that MMO could stand for another game, such as some FPS (combat arms/call of duty), but for sake of making this simple, we're on MMORPG.com, therefore i think its safe to say, we're talking about MMORPGs.
RPG stands for "role playing game", these would include, final fantasy 7, tales of destiny, xenogears, lunar, xenosaga, infinite undiscovery (or is it discovery?).
What makes an MMO? its massive, its multiplayer, its online.. (weird.. )
so would it be safe to assume, that MMORPG, would be a lot like.. massively multiplayer online role playing game.
You take what, we know as "rpgs", put it online, make it so other players can play together (on a 'massive') level, and you have a MMORPG. There is no real question about "what is a mmorpg?" sure the GAMEPLAY varies, but so did they when we were just playing them on snes, and ps1.
Don't even know how an argument, or discussion of "what a mmorpg" is, could even come up... lol its all very simple ;P
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
Well I've never met someone who played MMOs 10 years ago who doesn't think socialising was part of the point of the genre. Most of todays generation of MMO gamers think the opposite though and cry at any sign of socialising being an integral component of the genre. It is not my opinion at all, there is no room for opinion in observing that the genre used to hold community and the social aspect at its heart. I'm aware that that is no longer all an MMO is; today an MMO can entirely ignore social mechanics and essentially play as solo games with online features. I don't dispute that the definition has changed, I just think it needs to be broken down into different subgenres because the current MMO genre encompasses far too many entirely different and contradictory concepts.
Think of it like this: when someone wrote the first recognised fantasy novel you had a clear definition of the fantasy genre. Fantasy was just fantasy because the only recognised example was all that could define it. As more writers started writing fantasy, however, they added things and did things completely differently. Nowadays we still use the term fantasy to encompass all those concepts but they can also now be individually broken down into subgenres and crossover genres that include elements of other genres.
MMOs have evolved in the same way except few companies are willing to recognise that their game no longer fits the original genre definition properly and that they need to relabel their games as part of new subgenres. ANet were the first to deliberately do this I believe, naming GW1 a CORPG instead of a MMORPG.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
Well I've never met someone who played MMOs 10 years ago who doesn't think socialising was part of the point of the genre. Most of todays generation of MMO gamers think the opposite though and cry at any sign of socialising being an integral component of the genre. It is not my opinion at all, there is no room for opinion in observing that the genre used to hold community and the social aspect at its heart. I'm aware that that is no longer all an MMO is; today an MMO can entirely ignore social mechanics and essentially play as solo games with online features. I don't dispute that the definition has changed, I just think it needs to be broken down into different subgenres because the current MMO genre encompasses far too many entirely different and contradictory concepts.
Think of it like this: when someone wrote the first recognised fantasy novel you had a clear definition of the fantasy genre. Fantasy was just fantasy because the only recognised example was all that could define it. As more writers started writing fantasy, however, they added things and did things completely differently. Nowadays we still use the term fantasy to encompass all those concepts but they can also now be individually broken down into subgenres and crossover genres that include elements of other genres.
MMOs have evolved in the same way except few companies are willing to recognise that their game no longer fits the original genre definition properly and that they need to relabel their games as part of new subgenres. ANet were the first to deliberately do this I believe, naming GW1 a CORPG instead of a MMORPG.
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
I have to step in here, and lay out some really basic, and well known things.
First, what is an MMO? MMO, we use to shorten MMORPG (in most cases) some could argue, that MMO could stand for another game, such as some FPS (combat arms/call of duty), but for sake of making this simple, we're on MMORPG.com, therefore i think its safe to say, we're talking about MMORPGs.
RPG stands for "role playing game", these would include, final fantasy 7, tales of destiny, xenogears, lunar, xenosaga, infinite undiscovery (or is it discovery?).
What makes an MMO? its massive, its multiplayer, its online.. (weird.. )
so would it be safe to assume, that MMORPG, would be a lot like.. massively multiplayer online role playing game.
You take what, we know as "rpgs", put it online, make it so other players can play together (on a 'massive') level, and you have a MMORPG. There is no real question about "what is a mmorpg?" sure the GAMEPLAY varies, but so did they when we were just playing them on snes, and ps1.
Don't even know how an argument, or discussion of "what a mmorpg" is, could even come up... lol its all very simple ;P
The problem is it's not really as simple as sticking the two together. If you want to use that analogy though consider the glue that is holding MMO and RPG together. That glue is what actually defines an MMORPG, or used to anyway. My reply to Madeux covers the rest of my thoughts.
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
Well I've never met someone who played MMOs 10 years ago who doesn't think socialising was part of the point of the genre. Most of todays generation of MMO gamers think the opposite though and cry at any sign of socialising being an integral component of the genre. It is not my opinion at all, there is no room for opinion in observing that the genre used to hold community and the social aspect at its heart. I'm aware that that is no longer all an MMO is; today an MMO can entirely ignore social mechanics and essentially play as solo games with online features. I don't dispute that the definition has changed, I just think it needs to be broken down into different subgenres because the current MMO genre encompasses far too many entirely different and contradictory concepts.
Think of it like this: when someone wrote the first recognised fantasy novel you had a clear definition of the fantasy genre. Fantasy was just fantasy because the only recognised example was all that could define it. As more writers started writing fantasy, however, they added things and did things completely differently. Nowadays we still use the term fantasy to encompass all those concepts but they can also now be individually broken down into subgenres and crossover genres that include elements of other genres.
MMOs have evolved in the same way except few companies are willing to recognise that their game no longer fits the original genre definition properly and that they need to relabel their games as part of new subgenres. ANet were the first to deliberately do this I believe, naming GW1 a CORPG instead of a MMORPG.
as i was talking about, in the most above yours, IMO, as what i defined a MMO being, GW1 was still an MMO, they completely changed their "genre" of gaming, when they labeled it "CORPG", because that'd be a main genre, not a subgenre, it'd kinda contradict itself to be a subgenre right? how is it gonnna be MMORPG, and CORPG, you gotta pick an rpg damnit! (lol, i thought it was funny ;P)
but it was still online, massive amount of players played it, and it was multiplayer correct? thus.. making it an MMORPG
MMO's are likely still in a growth phase, the market still saturating and the spread onto other platforms continuing. Main-stream MMO titles are probably a different online social-gaming experience to MMO games that were or are pioneering, attracting a different social environment for online players. The MMO market has grown, saturated and will fragment probably leading to that pioneering game once again.
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
I don't understand, I already stated myself that I'm aware the genre has changed. I understand that genres are flexible. All I said was that some subgenres should be established. WoW is an MMO by today's standards, yes. It is so different to the MMO of ten years ago, however, that the distinctive differences could be used to clearly define it as a different subgenre.
A few hundred years from now when people are sealing themselves into stasis pods and up-linking their minds into a virtual world for years at a time might spur a government reaction to ban these activities... or it might become the new reality, with us squishy humans never leaving our heavily armored pods from birth, sort of a voluntary Matrix situation.
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
I don't understand, I already stated myself that I'm aware the genre has changed. I understand that genres are flexible. All I said was that some subgenres should be established. WoW is an MMO by today's standards, yes. It is so different to the MMO of ten years ago, however, that the distinctive differences could be used to clearly define it as a different subgenre.
It is painfully obvious that you certainly do not understand.
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
I don't understand, I already stated myself that I'm aware the genre has changed. I understand that genres are flexible. All I said was that some subgenres should be established. WoW is an MMO by today's standards, yes. It is so different to the MMO of ten years ago, however, that the distinctive differences could be used to clearly define it as a different subgenre.
I was gonna say something about pointing out the obvious, but i just did the exact same thing like 3 posts ago lmao! so i won't!
however, i think the genre of "Fantasy MMORPG" suites WoW just fine.. it has elves, dwarves, swords, and dragons, what about WoW makes you feel like it should have another genre?
as i was talking about, in the most above yours, IMO, as what i defined a MMO being, GW1 was still an MMO, they completely changed their "genre" of gaming, when they labeled it "CORPG", because that'd be a main genre, not a subgenre, it'd kinda contradict itself to be a subgenre right? how is it gonnna be MMORPG, and CORPG, you gotta pick an rpg damnit! (lol, i thought it was funny ;P)
but it was still online, massive amount of players played it, and it was multiplayer correct? thus.. making it an MMORPG
I recognise the problem in resolving whether it is an MMORPG or CORPG but the simple fact that ANet gave it a different name highlights that they are aware that it is so different that it isn't quite the normal definition of an MMO. I'm not sure how to consider CORPG though since it does fit the MMORPG concept so would it be a subgenre or a hybrid?
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
I don't understand, I already stated myself that I'm aware the genre has changed. I understand that genres are flexible. All I said was that some subgenres should be established. WoW is an MMO by today's standards, yes. It is so different to the MMO of ten years ago, however, that the distinctive differences could be used to clearly define it as a different subgenre.
It is painfully obvious that you certainly do not understand.
Oh I do, but the problem is by your defintion of genre you would be suggesting that the older MMOs like EQ1 and UO are no longer MMOs as the definition of the genre has moved on and changed. In reality though MMOs are not disappearing and the genre is simply expanding and expanding. That cannot happen forever. There has to be a point when someone breaks away entirely, still falling under the MMO genre yet recognised as so different that it is known by it's subgenre title instead of the genre umbrella title. I think WoW should have been the first example of that.
as i was talking about, in the most above yours, IMO, as what i defined a MMO being, GW1 was still an MMO, they completely changed their "genre" of gaming, when they labeled it "CORPG", because that'd be a main genre, not a subgenre, it'd kinda contradict itself to be a subgenre right? how is it gonnna be MMORPG, and CORPG, you gotta pick an rpg damnit! (lol, i thought it was funny ;P)
but it was still online, massive amount of players played it, and it was multiplayer correct? thus.. making it an MMORPG
I recognise the problem in resolving whether it is an MMORPG or CORPG but the simple fact that ANet gave it a different name highlights that they are aware that it is so different that it isn't quite the normal definition of an MMO. I'm not sure how to consider CORPG though since it does fit the MMORPG concept so would it be a subgenre or a hybrid?
They pretty much did what diablo II did.. diablo II was a single player game, that could go online, you'd join a lobby, and pick from several currently open games, or make one yourself. You could either beat the game on single player, or go online, and play with friends. GW1 was much like this, except, the "cities" were the lobbies, and you didn't see a list of "open games" you communicated with people to find groups, but overall the concept was the same. IMO, atleast.
I'd still consider GW1 to be an "MMO" because you were still in one big, massive, diverse game world. Its just you could go out of the cities, but yourself, and solo.
Most people wouldnt consider diablo II an MMO, and its often refered to just being a RPG, so one could argue, rather or not diablo II is an MMO, or not, and rather or not GW1 is a MMO, or CORPG - considering they both have the same "concept"
as i was talking about, in the most above yours, IMO, as what i defined a MMO being, GW1 was still an MMO, they completely changed their "genre" of gaming, when they labeled it "CORPG", because that'd be a main genre, not a subgenre, it'd kinda contradict itself to be a subgenre right? how is it gonnna be MMORPG, and CORPG, you gotta pick an rpg damnit! (lol, i thought it was funny ;P)
but it was still online, massive amount of players played it, and it was multiplayer correct? thus.. making it an MMORPG
I recognise the problem in resolving whether it is an MMORPG or CORPG but the simple fact that ANet gave it a different name highlights that they are aware that it is so different that it isn't quite the normal definition of an MMO. I'm not sure how to consider CORPG though since it does fit the MMORPG concept so would it be a subgenre or a hybrid?
They pretty much did what diablo II did.. diablo II was a single player game, that could go online, you'd join a lobby, and pick from several currently open games, or make one yourself. You could either beat the game on single player, or go online, and play with friends. GW1 was much like this, except, the "cities" were the lobbies, and you didn't see a list of "open games" you communicated with people to find groups, but overall the concept was the same. IMO, atleast.
I'd still consider GW1 to be an "MMO" because you were still in one big, massive, diverse game world. Its just you could go out of the cities, but yourself, and solo.
Most people wouldnt consider diablo II an MMO, and its often refered to just being a RPG, so one could argue, rather or not diablo II is an MMO, or not, and rather or not GW1 is a MMO, or CORPG - considering they both have the same "concept"
True, although Diablo didn't require an internet connection I believe, it was optional, whereas GW1 required one, and I think that is one of the basic components to defining an MMO. I suppose there is room to debate whether Diablo II is an MMO or not though based on online play alone.
The sooner WoW begins to die off the sooner the genre will begin to grow and flourish.
It always makes me laugh all these Warcrack addicts seem to think that a monopoly is a good thing, too blind to see they're being milked of their money with bare-bones content production in return.
by that logic, it will be a never ending cycle. as soon as that new "awesome mmo" comes out that actually "kills" wow, in no time, this topic will be brought up again blaming the "awesome mmo" that it's hindering the genre.
The sooner WoW begins to die off the sooner the genre will begin to grow and flourish.
It always makes me laugh all these Warcrack addicts seem to think that a monopoly is a good thing, too blind to see they're being milked of their money with bare-bones content production in return.
by that logic, it will be a never ending cycle. as soon as that new "awesome mmo" comes out that actually "kills" wow, in no time, this topic will be brought up again blaming the "awesome mmo" that it's hindering the genre.
not to mention blizzard has two new mmorpgs in the works ;P
Comments
MMO gaming will never die as long as there are people who want to socialize while having fun. There will always be plenty of people who want to socialize while having fun. Ergo, MMO gaming will never die.
I disagree with this. It is similar to saying that only one car company can exist because everyone will always buy the best car out there. It is simply not true.
Even say it was true - There's so much money to be made that the MMO scene that people will always be trying for that top spot. The business of MMOs would become like King of the Hill, one toppling the other every so often.
And that isn't the case?
Everquest toppled Ultima Online. World of Warcraft toppled Everquest. We're all waiting for a MMO to become a "WoW killer."
Yes, it's true that you don't have to be the most popular to be successful, but the majority of your target market is going to be in the camp of the current king. This is what restricts the genre to the same stale designs that we've been playing since 1999.
Again, free games have a little more room since the number of players is irrelevant. But isn't it telling that the first wave of F2P games were all some variation of Lineage 2 or Ragnarok Online? It's only now that these games are starting to really make an effort to differentiate themselves from their compitition. Now imagine how much slower that process will be with the subscription model.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Well... the problem there is most of WoW's players quite regularly point out that they have no interest in socialising in an MMO at all. They often say that they just want to play the game and socialising apparently prevents them from doing that. WoW is essentially an MMO for non-mmo players, they have no interest in the online elements of the game other than to show off their gear and achievements.
IMO this is why the industry is having so many problems at the moment; all of the 'popular' features that WoW introduced actually go against the entire point of the genre in order to attract the wider audience that prefer single player games. I suppose the way to put it would be that they 'sold out' like bands are often accused of doing in order to reach wider audiences, alienating their dedicated fans in the process.
I see more problems coming from people with your particular point of view... you speak of a game and say that it may "go against the entire point of the genre", and speak as if your personal opinion of what the point of the genre is should be determined by you. Everybody thinks they know best and know what everyone else should play, why they should play, and how they should play.
I don't mean to imply I know best or anything like that, but the genre DID have a clear definition a decade ago, WoW has blurred that. In my opinion it has blurred the genre so much that it needs to be redefined with subgenres but that won't happen for a while yet. I have nothing against WoW or Blizzard for what they created, in it's own right it is a great game, but when you compare it to the rigid structure the genre used to have is it really still in that genre? That's all I'm trying to say.
No one really knows what an MMO is any more as everyone has different definitions and as a result developers are flailing around unable to produce a successful game because everyone is expecting different and contradictory things.
I still talk on CB all the time.
-Letting Derek Smart work on your game is like letting Osama bin Laden work in the White House. Something will burn.-
-And on the 8th day, man created God.-
Even as you claim not to imply that you know best, you still instist that your opinion of what MMO's are is what they were specifically designed to be. A genre is a VERY broad concept, encorporating many specifics. What you, and too many others, tend to do is focus on your own specifics and end up seeing nothing else.
I have to step in here, and lay out some really basic, and well known things.
First, what is an MMO? MMO, we use to shorten MMORPG (in most cases) some could argue, that MMO could stand for another game, such as some FPS (combat arms/call of duty), but for sake of making this simple, we're on MMORPG.com, therefore i think its safe to say, we're talking about MMORPGs.
RPG stands for "role playing game", these would include, final fantasy 7, tales of destiny, xenogears, lunar, xenosaga, infinite undiscovery (or is it discovery?).
What makes an MMO? its massive, its multiplayer, its online.. (weird.. )
so would it be safe to assume, that MMORPG, would be a lot like.. massively multiplayer online role playing game.
You take what, we know as "rpgs", put it online, make it so other players can play together (on a 'massive') level, and you have a MMORPG. There is no real question about "what is a mmorpg?" sure the GAMEPLAY varies, but so did they when we were just playing them on snes, and ps1.
Don't even know how an argument, or discussion of "what a mmorpg" is, could even come up... lol its all very simple ;P
Well I've never met someone who played MMOs 10 years ago who doesn't think socialising was part of the point of the genre. Most of todays generation of MMO gamers think the opposite though and cry at any sign of socialising being an integral component of the genre. It is not my opinion at all, there is no room for opinion in observing that the genre used to hold community and the social aspect at its heart. I'm aware that that is no longer all an MMO is; today an MMO can entirely ignore social mechanics and essentially play as solo games with online features. I don't dispute that the definition has changed, I just think it needs to be broken down into different subgenres because the current MMO genre encompasses far too many entirely different and contradictory concepts.
Think of it like this: when someone wrote the first recognised fantasy novel you had a clear definition of the fantasy genre. Fantasy was just fantasy because the only recognised example was all that could define it. As more writers started writing fantasy, however, they added things and did things completely differently. Nowadays we still use the term fantasy to encompass all those concepts but they can also now be individually broken down into subgenres and crossover genres that include elements of other genres.
MMOs have evolved in the same way except few companies are willing to recognise that their game no longer fits the original genre definition properly and that they need to relabel their games as part of new subgenres. ANet were the first to deliberately do this I believe, naming GW1 a CORPG instead of a MMORPG.
Genre (pronounced /????nr?/, also /?d???nr?/; from French, genre /????/, "kind" or "sort", from Latin: genus (stem gener-), Greek: genos, γ?νος) is the term used to describe a loose set of criteria for categorization of literature and speech, as well as many other forms of art or culture. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions.
The problem is it's not really as simple as sticking the two together. If you want to use that analogy though consider the glue that is holding MMO and RPG together. That glue is what actually defines an MMORPG, or used to anyway. My reply to Madeux covers the rest of my thoughts.
as i was talking about, in the most above yours, IMO, as what i defined a MMO being, GW1 was still an MMO, they completely changed their "genre" of gaming, when they labeled it "CORPG", because that'd be a main genre, not a subgenre, it'd kinda contradict itself to be a subgenre right? how is it gonnna be MMORPG, and CORPG, you gotta pick an rpg damnit! (lol, i thought it was funny ;P)
but it was still online, massive amount of players played it, and it was multiplayer correct? thus.. making it an MMORPG
MMO's are likely still in a growth phase, the market still saturating and the spread onto other platforms continuing. Main-stream MMO titles are probably a different online social-gaming experience to MMO games that were or are pioneering, attracting a different social environment for online players. The MMO market has grown, saturated and will fragment probably leading to that pioneering game once again.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I don't understand, I already stated myself that I'm aware the genre has changed. I understand that genres are flexible. All I said was that some subgenres should be established. WoW is an MMO by today's standards, yes. It is so different to the MMO of ten years ago, however, that the distinctive differences could be used to clearly define it as a different subgenre.
A few hundred years from now when people are sealing themselves into stasis pods and up-linking their minds into a virtual world for years at a time might spur a government reaction to ban these activities... or it might become the new reality, with us squishy humans never leaving our heavily armored pods from birth, sort of a voluntary Matrix situation.
It is painfully obvious that you certainly do not understand.
I was gonna say something about pointing out the obvious, but i just did the exact same thing like 3 posts ago lmao! so i won't!
however, i think the genre of "Fantasy MMORPG" suites WoW just fine.. it has elves, dwarves, swords, and dragons, what about WoW makes you feel like it should have another genre?
I recognise the problem in resolving whether it is an MMORPG or CORPG but the simple fact that ANet gave it a different name highlights that they are aware that it is so different that it isn't quite the normal definition of an MMO. I'm not sure how to consider CORPG though since it does fit the MMORPG concept so would it be a subgenre or a hybrid?
Oh I do, but the problem is by your defintion of genre you would be suggesting that the older MMOs like EQ1 and UO are no longer MMOs as the definition of the genre has moved on and changed. In reality though MMOs are not disappearing and the genre is simply expanding and expanding. That cannot happen forever. There has to be a point when someone breaks away entirely, still falling under the MMO genre yet recognised as so different that it is known by it's subgenre title instead of the genre umbrella title. I think WoW should have been the first example of that.
They pretty much did what diablo II did.. diablo II was a single player game, that could go online, you'd join a lobby, and pick from several currently open games, or make one yourself. You could either beat the game on single player, or go online, and play with friends. GW1 was much like this, except, the "cities" were the lobbies, and you didn't see a list of "open games" you communicated with people to find groups, but overall the concept was the same. IMO, atleast.
I'd still consider GW1 to be an "MMO" because you were still in one big, massive, diverse game world. Its just you could go out of the cities, but yourself, and solo.
Most people wouldnt consider diablo II an MMO, and its often refered to just being a RPG, so one could argue, rather or not diablo II is an MMO, or not, and rather or not GW1 is a MMO, or CORPG - considering they both have the same "concept"
True, although Diablo didn't require an internet connection I believe, it was optional, whereas GW1 required one, and I think that is one of the basic components to defining an MMO. I suppose there is room to debate whether Diablo II is an MMO or not though based on online play alone.
by that logic, it will be a never ending cycle. as soon as that new "awesome mmo" comes out that actually "kills" wow, in no time, this topic will be brought up again blaming the "awesome mmo" that it's hindering the genre.
not to mention blizzard has two new mmorpgs in the works ;P