a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.
I don't that is fun for many. Sure fun is subjective and it may be fun for you .. but no flying, no portal, have to walk 20 min is not fun for me.
if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.
"Who would ever expect that" .. that is the point. Unexpected event is not always fun. In fact, if i am going to some place to meet a friend, i don't want unexpected pvp. All these stuff, open world pvp, and world boss are taken out for a reason.
instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces
Forced? You can always not do dungeons. In fact, that is the beauty of instances and arenas, you choose to do them, or not do them at any time you want.
There is no need to venture into the open .. exactly .. more direct to the source of fun .. dungeoning.
i suppose it boils down to preference and playstyle but in today's mmo .. lobby co-op dungeoning and arena pvp are obviously a big playstyle. Don't tell me no one play like that.
So what if they are new ideas? How are they any better? They are simply different ideas. Better and worse are arbitrary. The point is that there are already bazillions of games, both in the MMO genre and other genres, that do not want anything to do with a persistent world. Go play those. Games with persistent worlds never threatened those without persistent worlds. So why are games without persistent worlds threatening games with persistent worlds?
Of course i play games with no persistent world. Most gamers do. The point is not be threaten. But discuss if a persisent world is fun, and why and why not.
a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.
if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.
instead we are given the option to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces
edit: But that is not what a MMO-player prefers. so we can only wait for the sanboxes now.
You're talking sub genre of a sub genre vs sub genre of a sub genre. In your case mmorpg/graphical/non instance vs. mmorpg/graphical/instance also known as sandbox vs. themepark. I didn't think we were discussing that topic. I thought we were discussion how all of a sudden mmorpg by default = graphical non instance world. For which I do not agree with. As I don't think a mmorpg needs graphic per se nor a seamless world void of instances. Would it be nice? Sure. But a mmorpg in my book doesn't get disqualified because those two criteria are lacking.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
a persistant world is fun, if you roam around the forums youl see that it really can be fun. but you have to remove things such as queuing for dungeons and pvp, portals to instances flying mounts and alot of those quick travel mechanisms.
I don't that is fun for many. Sure fun is subjective and it may be fun for you .. but no flying, no portal, have to walk 20 min is not fun for me.
if you have a persistant world with open dungeons (not instanced), world bosses on random timers, a good looking world in general. players themself will make their own fun. your options in doing things are limetless. Soutshore-hilsbradd battle. who would ever expect that? we created our own little batle enviroment it was fun. we had a blast. and we created it ourselfs.
"Who would ever expect that" .. that is the point. Unexpected event is not always fun. In fact, if i am going to some place to meet a friend, i don't want unexpected pvp. All these stuff, open world pvp, and world boss are taken out for a reason.
instead we are forced to que for a dungeon or pvp (basicly evrything we do is on rails there is no need to venture out into the open anymore). granted both are fun. but it is not what an MMO is for. you can spare alot of time creating a lobby game with a dungeon format instead of creating that masive open world. and then locking evrything usefull into tiny spaces
Forced? You can always not do dungeons. In fact, that is the beauty of instances and arenas, you choose to do them, or not do them at any time you want.
There is no need to venture into the open .. exactly .. more direct to the source of fun .. dungeoning.
i suppose it boils down to preference and playstyle but in today's mmo .. lobby co-op dungeoning and arena pvp are obviously a big playstyle. Don't tell me no one play like that.
no yet again you don't see my point.
in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.
Are you serious about the hilsbrad thing? im talking about who in the world would have expected that there would be a 24/7 ongoing battle at that location? nobody. evryone knew it was there once it started. but nobody could have expected it. you could easily move around it because it was always in that same location not unexpected whatsoever. And open world PvP is fun. why do you think alot of peole are waiting for archage? Open world pvp is fun you might come accros 1 guy and you might come accros a entire group of people. when your out looking for a fight that is fun. random encounters instead of your arenas where you already have strategized who goes down first in whatever situation you come accros.
i am not choosing to do arena or que up for a dungeon. im forced to do it that way.
There is no way i can get a group together in a game wich i can que for a dungeon so im forced to que for it making my world useless. i cannot choose to do them i HAVE to do them because the open world hols nothing anymore. execpt ganking low levels. wow fun man seriously fun.....
if you think grinding a dungeon without speaking a word to anyone in the dungeon. is fun then i pity you really.
in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.
I don't play games to socialize with people. If i want to socialize there is something called a chat-room, and it is silly to force to socialize 20 min because i have to walk. If i want to socialize, i do it on my own time table, and not forced by some game.
Fun for you .. obviouly isnot fun for me .. and obviously is not fun for many.
The fact that LFD is popular ... mean that people consider that fun. I get it that you like to wait .. you like to socialize and stuff .. you totally not get it that it is not fun for others.
That is why you are always ranting.
And what is wrong with SP games? Lots of those are more fun than many MMOs. I pity those who miss out because it stuck in their head that they can only play one genre of game.
in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.
I don't play games to socialize with people. If i want to socialize there is something called a chat-room, and it is silly to force to socialize 20 min because i have to walk. If i want to socialize, i do it on my own time table, and not forced by some game.
Fun for you .. obviouly isnot fun for me .. and obviously is not fun for many.
The fact that LFD is popular ... mean that people consider that fun. I get it that you like to wait .. you like to socialize and stuff .. you totally not get it that it is not fun for others.
That is why you are always ranting.
And what is wrong with SP games? Lots of those are more fun than many MMOs. I pity those who miss out because it stuck in their head that they can only play one genre of game.
What you want to do your instant fun. goes against evrything a MMO used to be and there is a TON of games wich provide your instant fun already. Developers think dont think LFD is fun they can only see quick money. and have you not noticed the decline of all those themeparks around you wich you call fun? most of them are failing pretty badly and have to resort to a f2p model in order to keep the game alive.
there is nothing wrong with a SP game ive never said that. but a single player game is not a MMO don't try to turn it into one.
you know what im done with you. you don't seem to understand that there are alot of people who want immersion instead of your quick fun. cauz immersion is fun asswell. Goodbye
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:
"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar
So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.
The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.
And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.
Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:
"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar
So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.
The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.
And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.
Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.
well .. you are disqualifying D3 based on some other criterion. My early point still stands. It is wrong to say the lobby ceases to exist.
You can always define a MMO anyway you want to exclude or include a game. I am not interested in definitions. I am pointing out a reasoning error. Whether you classify D3 as a MMO or not, the lobby (including the AH) does not cease to exist when i log out.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -DrevarSo as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO. The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.
And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.
If your kid is logged in under their own login, on their copy of the game, they aren't in your lobby. Your kid is in their own lobby, using a chat channel. When you logout, the end point that is your lobby no longer exists on the chat network. Your lobby is not shared and it's not persistent. It's a stretch to call the lobby a virtual world. It provides functionality, but it doesn't provide structure or content for game play*.
The auction house is shared, and persistent, but it's a control panel, not a virtual world. It does provide structure for trading, which could be considered game play. It does not provide any content though, it only consumes content from another part of the game**.
I'm a little surprised nobody has brought up the chat channels themselves. Unlike the game world and the lobby, they are persistent. They are also shared. Many players can be in the same chat channel, whether they are chatting or not. It's possible the chat channels offer social content. I'm not really sure about structure for game play though. It's just chat. However, that's as close as D3 is going to get to having a persistent, shared, virtual world.
** edit **
* I would allow that a lobby is a virtual world.
** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:
"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar
So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.
The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
Are you sure about that? When i log out of the lobby in D3, i am sure it still exists because my kid is chatting on it.
And i am also pretty sure that the AH is pretty persistent without a world.
Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.
well .. you are disqualifying D3 based on some other criterion. My early point still stands. It is wrong to say the lobby ceases to exist.
You can always define a MMO anyway you want to exclude or include a game. I am not interested in definitions. I am pointing out a reasoning error. Whether you classify D3 as a MMO or not, the lobby (including the AH) does not cease to exist when i log out.
No, I'm simply stating that D3's AH and chat are MMO and it's server world is Multiplayer Online RPG. The massive part doesn't include the world.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
lol pretty much. This whole conversation it absurd. MMOS have big worlds thats why people play them vs single player games. Yes socializing is part of it whether loners like it or not.
In Fact there is a whole bunch of sandboxes on the horizon where socializing will become even more important. Uh Oh.
** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
lol pretty much. This whole conversation it absurd. MMOS have big worlds thats why people play them vs single player games. Yes socializing is part of it whether loners like it or not.
In Fact there is a whole bunch of sandboxes on the horizon where socializing will become even more important. Uh Oh.
I'm that guy who doesn't join to socialize at all. I kind of just end up making friends in game. When it's forced its okay if done right. I don't like the kind of grouping you get with modern raids/dungeons. They are just temporary people you'll probably never see again.
Back to the topic, I am glad other people are seeing the truth of what an MMO is. I don't even know how people started mixing it up. I honestly do not understand how the words massive multiplayer online don't come across more clearer. It makes me feel like the DJ that had to talk to the woman who thought that we should move deer crossing signs away from the highways lol.
"why are we encouraging deer to cross the interstate" LOL!
I wish we could just go back to arguing whether people like sandparks or themeparks better... or instances within MMO's, or dungeon group finders... I miss those days now.
As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs.
A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.
I have never heard of those games but my guess, they would be similar to Astro Empires. It's really a numbers type game too.
This site is not called MMO.com though. It's called MMORPG.com and for an MMO to be an RPG you need a world, one that should be persistent.
I'm sure I will get some push back on this one but I'd like to see a world that has no mounts, no easy button travel tools and is a week real time to get through. Better, a month of real time. All a horse allows you to do is carry more stuff. If it has cars or other automotive travel, the week to a month design starts with that even if you don't. I'd love to return to exploring worlds and have it take me 6 months of subs to do it. More and more, games are not PvE. The environment consists of a bunch of weak and under powered mobs that you farm for various items used in a gear grinding quest. This is the failing of all MMO's on the market today. There is no PvE. Not real PvE. There are no worlds.
As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs.
A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.
I have never heard of those games but my guess, they would be similar to Astro Empires. It's really a numbers type game too.
This site is not called MMO.com though. It's called MMORPG.com and for an MMO to be an RPG you need a world, one that should be persistent.
I'm sure I will get some push back on this one but I'd like to see a world that has no mounts, no easy button travel tools and is a week real time to get through. Better, a month of real time. All a horse allows you to do is carry more stuff. If it has cars or other automotive travel, the week to a month design starts with that even if you don't. I'd love to return to exploring worlds and have it take me 6 months of subs to do it. More and more, games are not PvE. The environment consists of a bunch of weak and under powered mobs that you farm for various items used in a gear grinding quest. This is the failing of all MMO's on the market today. There is no PvE. Not real PvE. There are no worlds.
True that. PVE is dead. Even if games have a persistent world it's a shadow of what it used to be.
Originally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:
"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -Drevar
So as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so!
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO.
The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...
This is becoming an episode from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. As much as our easyMMO apologists want to rewrite the English language, it is not going to happen. The new MMO’s are built on very different principles to the old. Find a new name for them, Mini MMO’s, Theme MMO’s, whatever.
Those who think the design values of old school MMO’s are redundant are the only ones who call for all MMO’s to come under one banner. Don’t fall in with gaming companies advertising, every MMO is not built to the same standards.
Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.
I think there is room (hopefully a Massive room) for both types of MMO’s. Open world and Themepark, call them what you will. If you only want one type you are being narrow minded and destructive to gaming. Variety in gameplay is the life blood of the industry, without it, it can but wither long term.
Originally posted by lizardbonesI'm not entirely sure that's what Quirhid is talking about. It seems like what they are saying is that you don't need a visual representation of a world, even if the world's existence is implied by the data or statistics you're being fed by the game.
It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.
Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.
Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.
An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games.
MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels.
So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG.
The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player.
WOW!!!! I am just astounded by how... well... man.. I am holding back so many insults.
COUNTERSTRIKE IS NOT AN MMO! IT ISN'T!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
How slow can people be? We already have classifation for the games you are talking about. THEY ARE CALLED MULTI-PLAYER!!!!!! We add the massive part on to describe MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PLAYING TOGETHER IN ONE INSTANCE. If you remove that MASSIVE part is is not MMO. Quake, Team Fortress, COD and many other games are MULTIPLAYER.
You saying what you just said completely IGNORES the developers, producers and fans of this genre. This forum used to be about people who liked MMO's, not we get a bunch of mensa canidates who think they can just shit all over what an MMO actually means and call any multiplayer game massive.
By definition you are wrong.
If a game allows people to interact with more people than a traditional multiplayer (is it 64 now?) even if that is through an auction house, than because it is more than multiplayer it is by definition massively multiplayer, then it is an MMO.
Whether it is an MMORPG is a different argument.
I've never played counterstrike, I don't know how many people you can interact with.
so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes
Originally posted by madazz Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by madazzOriginally posted by Ramonski7 I think it's already been stated that if you pick a server world when creating a character or are provided a single server world that houses all the players created and that server world's entire population has the option to converge to a common area that is exclusive to and exists inside that particular server world, even if it's texted based. And they can all occupy that common area at any given time, which excludes channels (lobbies) or chat features (in the case of graphical mmos), you have a mmorpg. Picking a timezone or a region does not equate to picking a server world. Well at least that's what I'm taking away from this discussion.
You know, that's what I thought an MMO was too... but apparently it isn't. Apparently an MMO is the exact same thing as a regular multiplayer game:"any game or network that has thousands of players online regardless of being in a single world" -DrevarSo as you can see we have been doing it wrong. We now need to come up with a new name for our classification of games. The new guys say so! As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO. The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs. That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...
Going with the idea that the virtual worlds are persistent and shared, the thinking is that even if you have a limited number of players on the server at any given time, you could have a massive number of people interacting with the world over a period of time.
For instance, if a server has one hundred fifty* player slots available for game play, but two thousand people log into the server over the course of a week, they've had a 'massive' amount of interaction on the server.
There isn't anything that says the interactions have to be concurrent or simultaneous.
Research this cr@p for yourself if you don't believe me.
* This could be one server slot or one thousand server slots, the exact number doesn't matter.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by shimiku Originally posted by VengeSunsoarOriginally posted by madazzOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by madazzOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by lizardbonesI'm not entirely sure that's what Quirhid is talking about. It seems like what they are saying is that you don't need a visual representation of a world, even if the world's existence is implied by the data or statistics you're being fed by the game.
It is a matter of definitions. The "usual" definition of a virtual world is a 3D representation of PCs and NPCs in a physical space (terrain).However, if you want to redefine a vritual world as a common set of data (world state) that players can interact with, i have no objection. But note that under that definition, a AH qualifies as a world, so that will make D3 a virtual world game.Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game. Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO. An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games. MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels. So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG. The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player. WOW!!!! I am just astounded by how... well... man.. I am holding back so many insults.COUNTERSTRIKE IS NOT AN MMO! IT ISN'T!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOHow slow can people be? We already have classifation for the games you are talking about. THEY ARE CALLED MULTI-PLAYER!!!!!! We add the massive part on to describe MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PLAYING TOGETHER IN ONE INSTANCE. If you remove that MASSIVE part is is not MMO. Quake, Team Fortress, COD and many other games are MULTIPLAYER.You saying what you just said completely IGNORES the developers, producers and fans of this genre. This forum used to be about people who liked MMO's, not we get a bunch of mensa canidates who think they can just shit all over what an MMO actually means and call any multiplayer game massive.By definition you are wrong. If a game allows people to interact with more people than a traditional multiplayer (is it 64 now?) even if that is through an auction house, than because it is more than multiplayer it is by definition massively multiplayer, then it is an MMO. Whether it is an MMORPG is a different argument. I've never played counterstrike, I don't know how many people you can interact with. so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes
I have a post in this particular sub-thread that is wrong. CoD, D3, BF3, etc. aren't MMOs. Even adding a chat window wouldn't make them MMOs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Scot This is becoming an episode from Orwells Ministry of Truth. As much as our easyMMO apologists want to rewrite the English language, it is not going to happen. The new MMOs are built on very different principles to the old. Find a new name for them, Mini MMOs, Theme MMOs, whatever.Those who think the design values of old school MMOs are redundant are the only ones who call for all MMOs to come under one banner. Dont fall in with gaming companies advertising, every MMO is not built to the same standards.Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMOs, and dont expect everyone to want what you want.I think there is room (hopefully a Massive room) for both types of MMOs. Open world and Themepark, call them what you will. If you only want one type you are being narrow minded and destructive to gaming. Variety in gameplay is the life blood of the industry, without it, it can but wither long term.
If people actually bother to go looking it up, there are a lot of different types of games that can fall under the MMO banner. The only requirement is that the game have a persistent and shared virtual world. Even with a limited number of concurrent players, this allows for massive interactions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
As demonstrated by Planetarion (wikipedia link), Dominion and various other similar games where your planet, kingdom etc. is represented by a webpage(s) of numbers and stats. These games have everything they need to be called an MMO and the ones which have player characters in them (instead of planets or dominions) are fully fledged MMORPGs.
A lack of a world does not unmake an MMORPG and a "true MMORPG" (if you insist such a thing exists) does not need a world nor does it need to be a world simulation.
Never gunna happen, they are not even on the same page, two different games.
This post is not even interesting, the idea is silly and I wonder if the OP was just really bored.
** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
lol pretty much.
Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by RoyalPhunk** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
lol pretty much. Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.
If we're going to define and apply the term "MMO", it needs to be definitive. It also needs to be something that can be applied consistently. If it can't stand up to the challenges put forth, then it's really not a good definition.
MMOs must have a virtual world that is persistent and shared.
Are auction houses virtual worlds? I think I explained why the Auction House in D3 is not a virtual world, so the AH being persistent and shared is irrelevant. Looking outside of D3, I thought eBay was an example of how Auction Houses in general are not considered virtual worlds, even if they are considered games. Auction houses can be games, and they can exist inside virtual worlds, but they are not virtual worlds in themselves. Which leads me to think D3's auction house isn't something that can be used to argue that it is an MMO.
I'm just explaining how when I made that comment it wasn't random and wasn't an attempt to derail the thread.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
You're talking sub genre of a sub genre vs sub genre of a sub genre. In your case mmorpg/graphical/non instance vs. mmorpg/graphical/instance also known as sandbox vs. themepark. I didn't think we were discussing that topic. I thought we were discussion how all of a sudden mmorpg by default = graphical non instance world. For which I do not agree with. As I don't think a mmorpg needs graphic per se nor a seamless world void of instances. Would it be nice? Sure. But a mmorpg in my book doesn't get disqualified because those two criteria are lacking.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
no yet again you don't see my point.
in that 20 mins of walking you will socialize with those people you talk about random things. get to know eachother wow hey you know what? that is considrered fun. instead of my qeue up get a dungeon in 2 secs (i always playa tank) and be outside of it in 10 mins without eve have spoken a word. wow fun man dungeon grindign with a group. but also not with a group. these 4 people might have been puppets and i would not even know the diffrence if the AI is good enough. Hi single player game.
Are you serious about the hilsbrad thing? im talking about who in the world would have expected that there would be a 24/7 ongoing battle at that location? nobody. evryone knew it was there once it started. but nobody could have expected it. you could easily move around it because it was always in that same location not unexpected whatsoever. And open world PvP is fun. why do you think alot of peole are waiting for archage? Open world pvp is fun you might come accros 1 guy and you might come accros a entire group of people. when your out looking for a fight that is fun. random encounters instead of your arenas where you already have strategized who goes down first in whatever situation you come accros.
i am not choosing to do arena or que up for a dungeon. im forced to do it that way.
There is no way i can get a group together in a game wich i can que for a dungeon so im forced to que for it making my world useless. i cannot choose to do them i HAVE to do them because the open world hols nothing anymore. execpt ganking low levels. wow fun man seriously fun.....
if you think grinding a dungeon without speaking a word to anyone in the dungeon. is fun then i pity you really.
I don't play games to socialize with people. If i want to socialize there is something called a chat-room, and it is silly to force to socialize 20 min because i have to walk. If i want to socialize, i do it on my own time table, and not forced by some game.
Fun for you .. obviouly isnot fun for me .. and obviously is not fun for many.
The fact that LFD is popular ... mean that people consider that fun. I get it that you like to wait .. you like to socialize and stuff .. you totally not get it that it is not fun for others.
That is why you are always ranting.
And what is wrong with SP games? Lots of those are more fun than many MMOs. I pity those who miss out because it stuck in their head that they can only play one genre of game.
What you want to do your instant fun. goes against evrything a MMO used to be and there is a TON of games wich provide your instant fun already. Developers think dont think LFD is fun they can only see quick money. and have you not noticed the decline of all those themeparks around you wich you call fun? most of them are failing pretty badly and have to resort to a f2p model in order to keep the game alive.
there is nothing wrong with a SP game ive never said that. but a single player game is not a MMO don't try to turn it into one.
you know what im done with you. you don't seem to understand that there are alot of people who want immersion instead of your quick fun. cauz immersion is fun asswell. Goodbye
Although both of those features exist on a server for D3, they get disqualified because they don't actually exist within the world created when players decide to login and actually play. Why you say? Because D3's main mode of interaction between the players and it's world is based on the use of graphics. But in this case I can chat and use the AH without ever engaging in D3's graphical world. Arguably both the server and chat are both MMO but because the graphical interface (namely the world the player characters themselves reside in) is not, D3 is disqualified from being a mmoRPG.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
well .. you are disqualifying D3 based on some other criterion. My early point still stands. It is wrong to say the lobby ceases to exist.
You can always define a MMO anyway you want to exclude or include a game. I am not interested in definitions. I am pointing out a reasoning error. Whether you classify D3 as a MMO or not, the lobby (including the AH) does not cease to exist when i log out.
If your kid is logged in under their own login, on their copy of the game, they aren't in your lobby. Your kid is in their own lobby, using a chat channel. When you logout, the end point that is your lobby no longer exists on the chat network. Your lobby is not shared and it's not persistent. It's a stretch to call the lobby a virtual world. It provides functionality, but it doesn't provide structure or content for game play*.
The auction house is shared, and persistent, but it's a control panel, not a virtual world. It does provide structure for trading, which could be considered game play. It does not provide any content though, it only consumes content from another part of the game**.
I'm a little surprised nobody has brought up the chat channels themselves. Unlike the game world and the lobby, they are persistent. They are also shared. Many players can be in the same chat channel, whether they are chatting or not. It's possible the chat channels offer social content. I'm not really sure about structure for game play though. It's just chat. However, that's as close as D3 is going to get to having a persistent, shared, virtual world.
** edit **
* I would allow that a lobby is a virtual world.
** The auction house is equivalent to eBay. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever considered eBay a virtual world.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No, I'm simply stating that D3's AH and chat are MMO and it's server world is Multiplayer Online RPG. The massive part doesn't include the world.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
lol pretty much. This whole conversation it absurd. MMOS have big worlds thats why people play them vs single player games. Yes socializing is part of it whether loners like it or not.
In Fact there is a whole bunch of sandboxes on the horizon where socializing will become even more important. Uh Oh.
I'm that guy who doesn't join to socialize at all. I kind of just end up making friends in game. When it's forced its okay if done right. I don't like the kind of grouping you get with modern raids/dungeons. They are just temporary people you'll probably never see again.
Back to the topic, I am glad other people are seeing the truth of what an MMO is. I don't even know how people started mixing it up. I honestly do not understand how the words massive multiplayer online don't come across more clearer. It makes me feel like the DJ that had to talk to the woman who thought that we should move deer crossing signs away from the highways lol.
"why are we encouraging deer to cross the interstate" LOL!
I wish we could just go back to arguing whether people like sandparks or themeparks better... or instances within MMO's, or dungeon group finders... I miss those days now.
I have never heard of those games but my guess, they would be similar to Astro Empires. It's really a numbers type game too.
This site is not called MMO.com though. It's called MMORPG.com and for an MMO to be an RPG you need a world, one that should be persistent.
I'm sure I will get some push back on this one but I'd like to see a world that has no mounts, no easy button travel tools and is a week real time to get through. Better, a month of real time. All a horse allows you to do is carry more stuff. If it has cars or other automotive travel, the week to a month design starts with that even if you don't. I'd love to return to exploring worlds and have it take me 6 months of subs to do it. More and more, games are not PvE. The environment consists of a bunch of weak and under powered mobs that you farm for various items used in a gear grinding quest. This is the failing of all MMO's on the market today. There is no PvE. Not real PvE. There are no worlds.
True that. PVE is dead. Even if games have a persistent world it's a shadow of what it used to be.
That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...
This is becoming an episode from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. As much as our easyMMO apologists want to rewrite the English language, it is not going to happen. The new MMO’s are built on very different principles to the old. Find a new name for them, Mini MMO’s, Theme MMO’s, whatever.
Those who think the design values of old school MMO’s are redundant are the only ones who call for all MMO’s to come under one banner. Don’t fall in with gaming companies advertising, every MMO is not built to the same standards.
Wanting instant access is wanting a lobby, wanting instant travel is wanting a lobby, if you like that, then its for you. But call them what they would be, Lobby MMO’s, and don’t expect everyone to want what you want.
I think there is room (hopefully a Massive room) for both types of MMO’s. Open world and Themepark, call them what you will. If you only want one type you are being narrow minded and destructive to gaming. Variety in gameplay is the life blood of the industry, without it, it can but wither long term.
so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes
As long as the game has a virtual world that is persistent and shared, it's an MMO. The difference between an MMO and a multiplayer game is the persistence of the world. When a player logs out of their lobby, the lobby ceases to exist. When players log out of the shared, virtual world, it ends. So, multiplayer games aren't MMOs.
That's right... it doesn't have to have the massive multiplayer part to be an MMO! It just needs a persistent world... that makes TOTAL sense. Why didn't we call it PWRPG instead of MMO? DAMN! All these years I've been so wrong...
Going with the idea that the virtual worlds are persistent and shared, the thinking is that even if you have a limited number of players on the server at any given time, you could have a massive number of people interacting with the world over a period of time.
For instance, if a server has one hundred fifty* player slots available for game play, but two thousand people log into the server over the course of a week, they've had a 'massive' amount of interaction on the server.
There isn't anything that says the interactions have to be concurrent or simultaneous.
Research this cr@p for yourself if you don't believe me.
* This could be one server slot or one thousand server slots, the exact number doesn't matter.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Are we talking about MMORPGs or MMOs? MMOs cover a lot more ground and really can include games like D3, because a shared world isn't part of the expectation. If we're talking about MMORPG, a shared world is part of the expectation, whether that shared world is represented through 2D graphics, 3D graphics or text. In the case of MMORPG, it's important that the shared world actually be a 'world'. This could be a space, a single city block, the interior of a huge spaceship, whatever. But it's a space where the players exist and occupy space. D3's auction house doesn't really fit this description. It's never been described or represented as a building that players are standing in, it's always been a control panel that players use. The OP's example on the other hand gives the players a control panel, but that control panel represents a physical space wherein they get to do things. One way to distinguish between a world and a control panel is whether or not players can perform the primary function of the world with each other directly. With D3's auction house, players cannot trade with each other directly. They would need to leave that space to trade. While in that space, players cannot engage in combat, which is another primary function of the game.
Actually, Diablo 3 can't be called an MMO because it doesn't have a massive amount of people playing the same game in the same instance at the same time. We already have subgenres that existed BEFORE MMO's that totally and 100% cover what Diablo is. Diablo is a multiplayer game. Not an MMO.
An MMO doesn't require a massive number of people in the same space. It just needs a massive number of people playing the same game, at the same time, online. D3 has the added element of allowing all those people to interact through the auction houses. More so than other lobby games, D3 has an element of player interaction that doesn't exist in other MMO games. MMORPGs have an element of a shared space, which is considered the game's world where players interact. D3 doesn't have this. The D3 auction houses are not shared worlds, or even shared spaces. They are shared control panels. So, D3 can be considered an MMO, but I don't see it being considered an MMORPG. The OP's example, Planetarion is an MMORPG because the players have a shared world, regardless of how it's presented to the player.
WOW!!!! I am just astounded by how... well... man.. I am holding back so many insults. COUNTERSTRIKE IS NOT AN MMO! IT ISN'T!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO How slow can people be? We already have classifation for the games you are talking about. THEY ARE CALLED MULTI-PLAYER!!!!!! We add the massive part on to describe MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE PLAYING TOGETHER IN ONE INSTANCE. If you remove that MASSIVE part is is not MMO. Quake, Team Fortress, COD and many other games are MULTIPLAYER. You saying what you just said completely IGNORES the developers, producers and fans of this genre. This forum used to be about people who liked MMO's, not we get a bunch of mensa canidates who think they can just shit all over what an MMO actually means and call any multiplayer game massive. By definition you are wrong.
If a game allows people to interact with more people than a traditional multiplayer (is it 64 now?) even if that is through an auction house, than because it is more than multiplayer it is by definition massively multiplayer, then it is an MMO. Whether it is an MMORPG is a different argument. I've never played counterstrike, I don't know how many people you can interact with.
so if EA add a chat window and a AH to BF3 we have a MMO and its even a MMORPG acording to this because it also have 4 classes
I have a post in this particular sub-thread that is wrong. CoD, D3, BF3, etc. aren't MMOs. Even adding a chat window wouldn't make them MMOs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If people actually bother to go looking it up, there are a lot of different types of games that can fall under the MMO banner. The only requirement is that the game have a persistent and shared virtual world. Even with a limited number of concurrent players, this allows for massive interactions.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Never gunna happen, they are not even on the same page, two different games.
This post is not even interesting, the idea is silly and I wonder if the OP was just really bored.
Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Does it make a difference whether eBay is a virtual world or not? It's not a game (yes, yes, Mr Troll, like anything else it can be treated as one), so it's irrelevant when discussing the criteria for a game.
If we're going to define and apply the term "MMO", it needs to be definitive. It also needs to be something that can be applied consistently. If it can't stand up to the challenges put forth, then it's really not a good definition.
MMOs must have a virtual world that is persistent and shared.
Are auction houses virtual worlds? I think I explained why the Auction House in D3 is not a virtual world, so the AH being persistent and shared is irrelevant. Looking outside of D3, I thought eBay was an example of how Auction Houses in general are not considered virtual worlds, even if they are considered games. Auction houses can be games, and they can exist inside virtual worlds, but they are not virtual worlds in themselves. Which leads me to think D3's auction house isn't something that can be used to argue that it is an MMO.
I'm just explaining how when I made that comment it wasn't random and wasn't an attempt to derail the thread.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.