Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: World of Battleships Debut Trailer
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
Comments
Im Hoping for a NavyField type Game with better graphics.
By land. by air, now by sea. Okay, fine. It's not a massively-multiplayer game that supports hundreds or thousands of players in a persistent world or map for that matter.
So i guess I conceptually can't get my mind aroung these lobby-system mini-map limited team-size vs team-size third-person shooters not being tied to the more appropriate gaming style site they should, such as in FPS Guru; the only different is point-of-view.
Is it massive? Yes.
Is it multiplayer? Yes
is it rpg? Yes it has stats and levels and stuff.
DOes it have a shared graphical setting? Yes. both the matches and clan wars territorial map itself.
Its as much of mmo as vindictus, dragon nest or guild wars are.
# A GRIM, ODD, ARCANE SKY
# ANY GOD, I MARK SACRED
# A MASKED CRY ADORING
# A DREAMY, SICK DRAGON
I'm actually looking forward to this game, being an old tabletop naval combat player. Seapower II and Seekrieg FTW!
Should be interesting to see how this turns out.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Hehe. Good one. If one's definition of massive is having each team consisting of 15 players, then we clearly have a grossly varying opinion of the term "massive". lol
Yeah, I don't really get how these games are considered "MMO's". If we use the same criteria, then all XBOX Live games are also MMO's... Having said that, I am still having a BLAST playing World of Tanks, and can't wait to try out this one as well (I am in the navy, so this looks especially interesting to me).
Is World of Infantry next to be announced?
Played the tank game during beta and was pretty fun can't wait for the plane and ship versions.
They already announced it. It's Called "Call of Duty".
Precisely. Seriously, I will look forward to it being revealed and written about on mmorpg.com, along with Battlefield 3. *sarcasm*
But my comparitive thought on the topic of World of Battleships within mmorpg.com still remains that Battlefield 3 looks to be a far better combination of World of Tanks, World of Warplane and World of Battleships combined, with cooperative and competitive team-play (twice as much), without the restriction of your avatar being a tank, a plane or a ship (in this case), with avatar growth through unlocks, achievements, upgrades, ribbons, skills, etc., and again with twice as many players cooperating and competing in a lobby-system match compared to the afformentioned (World of Battleships and World of Tanks), but is also multiplayer online.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE
I just have to better understand the rationale that mmorpg.com has a Potpourri of supposed mmorpg's (where 'massively' is now considered a team of 4-15 players that get instanced into a game from a personal lobby), of which are game-types that include these First & Third-person lobby-system online game shooters (World of Tanks, World of Battleships, Call of Duty, Battlefield3). Again, which Battlefield 3 will boast the most sizable team v team size and to me such game-types might feel more at home at FPSGuru.
So having said that, Battlefield 3 is already on FPSGuru (comparing it again to the topic of World of Battleships), and though it appears to offer as much, if not more in-game accomplishments, etc., the only 2 reasons or differentiators I can see for it not being on the main mmorpg.com site, nestled next to it's Third-Person cousin, it's not called "World of Battlefield" and doesn't have a cash-shop.
How is it appropriate to move it to FPS guru?
According to you since it "is not massive" it does not belong here. If it is anything like WoT, It will not be first person, so by that logic it does not belong on FPS either.
What constitutes "massive" for you?
# of people actively involved with your character? Raids and parties are limited in # of participants
# of players on a persistant world / map? WoT has the global conquest map where your clan match games determine territorial control. Battleships and Warplanes will most likely be integrated with this as well.
Lobbies? Sitting around waiting for a spot in a raid/dungeon/match is pretty much the same thing. Your presistant world does not mean much if all you do is wait around a city until the next event.
Mini-map? You mean the small scale skirmish type battle right, anything not done on open/persistant worlds, like dungeons/raids/instances and non openworld pvp?
Limited team size? Like party and raid sizes. MAG is a shooter with up to 256 players per match and would not be considered an MMORPG.
Third-person shooter? As opposed to a third-person archer/ranger/mage?
Maybe we should create a "Does not fit a category that matches my definition of a game" guru instead and move it there.
It's good that the mmorpg.com portal is hosting World of Battleships, Tanks, Etc. So lets be clear there. I enjoyed WoT for a couple of weeks, and might enjoy WoB for a couple of weeks, so I look forward to trying it.
I just need to rationalize the similarities and differences between the 2.
So If Battlefield 3 isn't considered 'massive' while being able to host 'more' players on a map, then either is WoB, WoT, etc. However, if ones' definition of 'massive' is 8-30 players simultaneously playing in an instanced map that the participating players actually instacned into, as the 'primary' and 'core' mechanic of game-play content, then the playing-field is open to the new definition of 'massively-multiplayer', is all I'm thinking.
The similarities, as I rationalize this and think about both titles, of World of Battleships and Battlefield 3, for example, is that:
they're both lobby-system games. As you've recognized.
neither is a persistent world, but mini-map timed skirmishes, as you've recognized.
Static map-play, just to be redundent, as you've recognized.
Both have skill upgrades, awards, accomplishments, etc.
Both are cooperatively and competitively played to win said map.
The differences being:
With Battlefield 3, there is larger, more sizable cooperative and competitive team vs team game-play (64-player vs 30-player).
With BF3, your avatar isn't restricted to a tank, plane or ship.
There isn't a cash-shop with BF3.
Point-of-view is third-person in WoB.
Battlefield 3 isn't called "world of Battlefield".
I'm just pondering all this. And again, look forward to trying WoB.
Why do people care so much about what near-mmo or mmo is written about here? If you are not interested in a game or games just don't read about them? Read about you are interested in?
Looks interesting to me, I like WoT so the airplanes and ships should be fun too.
because they are not fps games lol.. they are tactics simulation games.. navy field for example as far as battle ships go require a margin of player skill for you to be any good.. no mmo requires player skill. mmos require player understanding of charecter skill trees and the best order in which to use them to get best effect.. once thats worked out skill is not required.. just a simple understanding of when to attack and when not to attack and then just key smashing till either you kill the target or it kills you..
and thats the diffrence. try playing navy field then try playing wow and notice the massive diffrence then try playing call of duty then try playing navy field and see for your self that navy field is not a first person shooter lol.
I think i never read a more ridiculous definition of rpg ...
you sir dont know what a rpg is.
WN games never deserved, nor researched i think, the mmorpg title.
They are are cooperative tactical shooters.