Since you're asking about MMORPG specifically and not MMO, then I'd say it should be a roleplaying game with a massive number of concurrent players. Anything more specific is simply imposing arbitrary and personal restrictions.
Answering these as I come to them so sorry if the conversation has moved on since here, will catch up in a minute.
That's a solid answer though. About as solid as I need really. But let's break it down a little more if we can. Because you know the next step in the boilerplate war is to say "Well, what defines roleplaying? Does that mean playing a personality, class, or something else, or all of that?"
I'm really trying to hone this thing down. The Massive number of concurrent players think is ok I guess, even though that has also been dissected into "Does that mean all in the same place at once or all in little separate rooms that are connected to one another".
This is just a challenge to see if we can really come up with something very simple that we all agree on. My theme this week is "The Tower of Babble". If you know that story then you know what I am getting at.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
Taking the label literally is the last thing i will do. MMORPG is just a collection of games.
For example, what is "multiplayer"? A lot of MMOs can be solo-ed, and people play them as such.
I'm tempted to just say "fun" and leave it at that; it's got to be the only universally agreed upon answer to the question, but it's also a bit on the trite side so I'll expand my answer a little.
The focus of an MMORPG should be to provide a consistently entertaining RPG experience supporting large-scale multiplayer interaction. Everything else is going to vary depending on the preference of the players.
My personal preference is for immersive and changeable worlds supporting large-scale cooperative play. I'm extremely interested in the concepts put forward by Everquest Next; the idea of being part of a community that works together to create and defend a functional town is tailor made for me.
The focus of an MMORPG should be to provide a consistently entertaining RPG experience supporting large-scale multiplayer interaction. Everything else is going to vary depending on the preference of the players.
That is the problem. What you think it "should be" is just an opinion, and not shared by everyone.
For example, many MMOs are NOT focusing in "large-scale multiplayer interactions". Many MMOs are focusing on small group instanced pve and pvp content.
Obviously those who made these games, and those who play these games disagree with you.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
Taking the label literally is the last thing i will do. MMORPG is just a collection of games.
For example, what is "multiplayer"? A lot of MMOs can be solo-ed, and people play them as such.
what you chose to do is your business, but you're still incorrect, MMORPG has a pretty specific definition and is most accurately applied to games of fairly specific set of features.
You can be much more flexible with the term MMO however.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Not sure if this has been done before, if so let it die, but I am wondering...What do you all think the focus of an MMORPG should be?
Should it be to allow the player to feel as though they are living in an actual fantasy world where the rules, although bent to facilitate the fantasy, are similar to our own?
Or should it be to provide the player with an actual game to play where achievement and winning are the priority and real world rules don't apply unless they are part of the challenge of whatever game is being presented at the time?
Or should it be something else?
And please don't say to make money because that's the no-brainer and you really wouldn't be working that hard to come up with it.
This shouldn't even have to be asked, the answer is brutally obvious. Sadly, the industry doesn't have even this much sense, mass producing copy paste mirrored 5 class 5 race BG flag capture games and calling them mmorpgs.
1. When I log into a title, the title should be manufactured in such a way as to truly be built to convince me that the lore, the lands, the adventures, the PvP, is as realistically driven as possible. There will be great castles of troops guarding territories of my allies as well as my enemies...races will NOT be the same all over a map, and neither will the religions they profess. AND THEY WILL BE AT WAR! And I'm not talking about gang style pvp mechanics where a handful of folks guard a piece of turf. I'm talking nation vs nation vs nation - like in every epic saga we read, as in the most epic of fantasy movies we see.
These developers will stop reading profit charts and instead open a history book. They will learn basic concepts like, if you had an English accent and were caught in French territory during the 100 years war, chances were you'd be killed on the spot or at least imprisoned.
Fantasy gaming has started with EQ, Ultima, Dark Age of Camelot and Asheron's Call. From these early examples, new titles should have been built, following these platforms and keeping the industry legitimate.
Now we have panda bears and cash shops, E-Sports has fully evolved and players bounce between games in the same way a John treats a prostitute.
The focus of an MMORPG should be to provide a consistently entertaining RPG experience supporting large-scale multiplayer interaction. Everything else is going to vary depending on the preference of the players.
That is the problem. What you think it "should be" is just an opinion, and not shared by everyone.
For example, many MMOs are NOT focusing in "large-scale multiplayer interactions". Many MMOs are focusing on small group instanced pve and pvp content.
Obviously those who made these games, and those who play these games disagree with you.
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
Taking the label literally is the last thing i will do. MMORPG is just a collection of games.
For example, what is "multiplayer"? A lot of MMOs can be solo-ed, and people play them as such.
what you chose to do is your business, but you're still incorrect, MMORPG has a pretty specific definition and is most accurately applied to games of fairly specific set of features.
You can be much more flexible with the term MMO however.
There is no authority to define MMO (or MMORPG). You certainly are not. The industry has a common usage. For example, Marvel Heroes is considered a MMORPGs but it certainly does NOT have many features that a classical MMORPG has. For example, it has public zones, but no consistent world.
Now, you may disagree that it is a MMORPG, and you can argue to your face blue. But the industry is just going to ignore you.
Personally i don't really care one way or another. But i will use the categorization that most people use, just to facilitate communication.
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
Depends on what "support" means.
Marvel heroes has no large scale gameplay. Even WOW does not have large scale interactions aside from staring at a large number of toons in a city. Is that support enough?
Personally i think this "large scale multiplayer interactions" is just irrelevant if 99% of the gameplay is small scale.
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
Depends on what "support" means.
Marvel heroes has no large scale gameplay. Even WOW does not have large scale interactions aside from staring at a large number of toons in a city. Is that support enough?
Personally i think this "large scale multiplayer interactions" is just irrelevant if 99% of the gameplay is small scale.
I'd argue that a persistent world / community would qualify as large scale multiplayer interaction, yes.
My problem with the modern MMO's that I've played (and the reason that I no longer play them) is that I don't feel that they have enough tools for the community as a whole to interact in a meaningful way, but I suppose that's my preference.
MMO focus for pve should be tackling hard contend. A platform where guilds should compete each other for server or worlds 1st boss kills in challeging dungeon designs.
It should focus on creating a world where crafting / farming recources is worth your time.
PvP should be balanced and competitive both in open world / battlegrounds / arena It should contain a free for all style for fun and get rewarded for your effort, more if you stand out of the normal crowd. Tournaments for the heavy team players in Battlegrounds and Arena's.
World PvP should matter, you should be able to conquer the lands for the best recources. Where wars are fought over constandly. An open world where players want to fight in that looks epic and dynamic like woods / swamps / big canyons / deserts / amazons. Sieges that lasts for hours and hours. That go back and forth untill one side is totaly evicted and desimated.
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
Depends on what "support" means.
Marvel heroes has no large scale gameplay. Even WOW does not have large scale interactions aside from staring at a large number of toons in a city. Is that support enough?
Personally i think this "large scale multiplayer interactions" is just irrelevant if 99% of the gameplay is small scale.
I'd argue that a persistent world / community would qualify as large scale multiplayer interaction, yes.
My problem with the modern MMO's that I've played (and the reason that I no longer play them) is that I don't feel that they have enough tools for the community as a whole to interact in a meaningful way, but I suppose that's my preference.
So a big chatroom has large scale multiplayer interactions?
And you are right, it is your preference. Mine is different. Many have different preferences.
And what if the "world" is just a city lobby. Does that count? If so, is there a huge difference between that and a menu lobby?
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
Depends on what "support" means.
Marvel heroes has no large scale gameplay. Even WOW does not have large scale interactions aside from staring at a large number of toons in a city. Is that support enough?
Personally i think this "large scale multiplayer interactions" is just irrelevant if 99% of the gameplay is small scale.
I'd argue that a persistent world / community would qualify as large scale multiplayer interaction, yes.
My problem with the modern MMO's that I've played (and the reason that I no longer play them) is that I don't feel that they have enough tools for the community as a whole to interact in a meaningful way, but I suppose that's my preference.
So a big chatroom has large scale multiplayer interactions?
And you are right, it is your preference. Mine is different. Many have different preferences.
And what if the "world" is just a city lobby. Does that count? If so, is there a huge difference between that and a menu lobby?
A virtual world full of other real people with whom you can interact in a meaningful in-game manner; yes.
A lobby full of players who do not exist in the game-world until, for example, summoned by an external means; no.
Your "toons in a city" example highlights the difference, especially for someone such as myself who actively enjoys roleplay. If I walk through a town and see/interact with people I recognise, it adds to my enjoyment of the game.
Your "toons in a city" example highlights the difference, especially for someone such as myself who actively enjoys roleplay. If I walk through a town and see/interact with people I recognise, it adds to my enjoyment of the game.
Really? When the others are only inspecting you and comparing gearscore, or making chuck-norris jobs, or tab-out surfing and waiting for their dungeons to pop?
Personally i would make little distinction between that, and a menu lobby, since 99% of the play-time is NOT going to be in the lobby (menu or city world) anyway.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
Taking the label literally is the last thing i will do. MMORPG is just a collection of games.
For example, what is "multiplayer"? A lot of MMOs can be solo-ed, and people play them as such.
what you chose to do is your business, but you're still incorrect, MMORPG has a pretty specific definition and is most accurately applied to games of fairly specific set of features.
You can be much more flexible with the term MMO however.
There is no authority to define MMO (or MMORPG). You certainly are not. The industry has a common usage. For example, Marvel Heroes is considered a MMORPGs but it certainly does NOT have many features that a classical MMORPG has. For example, it has public zones, but no consistent world.
Now, you may disagree that it is a MMORPG, and you can argue to your face blue. But the industry is just going to ignore you.
Personally i don't really care one way or another. But i will use the categorization that most people use, just to facilitate communication.
I was rather literal when answering the OP. But the reason the question is tricky is that this is about what MMO's are as much as what we want them to be.
MMO's do have a core definition, but gaming companies will obliviously try to change that definition to their benefit. They know the term MMO attracts audience and will apply it to their products no matter how borderline their game is to being a MMO. We are seeing the same thing now with the term sandbox, it is this years online gaming buzzword so every new release has to at least have sandbox elements. Again the gaming companies are making the word sandbox mean what the want it to mean to sell their game.
A game that does not have a persistent world is not a MMO. But I am hardly surprised that MH have applied that term to the game. Even if they always made it clear that it was a MMO but without a persistent world that would be fine. But as always when duping consumers you leave it to the small print.
I don't care how the industry uses the term, we have our own version of what it means. I would not expect them to use our definition, they want to give anything they sell us the status of being a MMO. And they don't care what we think, fine, that works both ways then.
I was rather literal when answering the OP. But the reason the question is tricky is that this is about what MMO's are as much as what we want them to be.
Not "we". Just "you". And it is always a fallacy to assume most players "want" MMOs to be anything. I would bet most don't care. Personally i don't care what MMO is. I care if a specific game is good.
A game that does not have a persistent world is not a MMO. But I am hardly surprised that MH have applied that term to the game. Even if they always made it clear that it was a MMO but without a persistent world that would be fine. But as always when duping consumers you leave it to the small print.
That is assuming the label MMO sells. Many devs are actually distancing themselves away. The label no longer sells. In fact, the dev of MH does not call it a straight MMO (something like a ARPGMMO) but the industry use MMO for convenience.
I don't care how the industry uses the term, we have our own version of what it means. I would not expect them to use our definition, they want to give anything they sell us the status of being a MMO. And they don't care what we think, fine, that works both ways then.
Again, there is no "we".
And personally i use the industry def because it is just more convenient. There is not other reason that i think is important.
Not sure if this has been done before, if so let it die, but I am wondering...What do you all think the focus of an MMORPG should be?
Should it be to allow the player to feel as though they are living in an actual fantasy world where the rules, although bent to facilitate the fantasy, are similar to our own?
Or should it be to provide the player with an actual game to play where achievement and winning are the priority and real world rules don't apply unless they are part of the challenge of whatever game is being presented at the time?
Or should it be something else?
And please don't say to make money because that's the no-brainer and you really wouldn't be working that hard to come up with it.
At it's core, we have RPGs. MMORPGS need to be RPGs first and foremost. That means you are playing a character and that character has skills. It's not your personal skills (unless you can cast a fireball).
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
Answering these as I come to them so sorry if the conversation has moved on since here, will catch up in a minute.
That's a solid answer though. About as solid as I need really. But let's break it down a little more if we can. Because you know the next step in the boilerplate war is to say "Well, what defines roleplaying? Does that mean playing a personality, class, or something else, or all of that?"
I'm really trying to hone this thing down. The Massive number of concurrent players think is ok I guess, even though that has also been dissected into "Does that mean all in the same place at once or all in little separate rooms that are connected to one another".
This is just a challenge to see if we can really come up with something very simple that we all agree on. My theme this week is "The Tower of Babble". If you know that story then you know what I am getting at.
A tricky question where posters are quite reasonably just putting down what their preference for a MMO is. For me you don't have to go far out of the box which is the title:
Massive: Many players, the number can vary according to zone, instance and activity.
Multiplayer: Interaction, be it grouping, trading, fighting, etc.
Online: Both in game and on forums.
Role Playing: Part immersion, part actually roleplaying. There is a difference.
Game: The whole package keeps in mind what is good gameplay and this balances all the other factors above.
Taking the label literally is the last thing i will do. MMORPG is just a collection of games.
For example, what is "multiplayer"? A lot of MMOs can be solo-ed, and people play them as such.
I'm tempted to just say "fun" and leave it at that; it's got to be the only universally agreed upon answer to the question, but it's also a bit on the trite side so I'll expand my answer a little.
The focus of an MMORPG should be to provide a consistently entertaining RPG experience supporting large-scale multiplayer interaction. Everything else is going to vary depending on the preference of the players.
My personal preference is for immersive and changeable worlds supporting large-scale cooperative play. I'm extremely interested in the concepts put forward by Everquest Next; the idea of being part of a community that works together to create and defend a functional town is tailor made for me.
That is the problem. What you think it "should be" is just an opinion, and not shared by everyone.
For example, many MMOs are NOT focusing in "large-scale multiplayer interactions". Many MMOs are focusing on small group instanced pve and pvp content.
Obviously those who made these games, and those who play these games disagree with you.
what you chose to do is your business, but you're still incorrect, MMORPG has a pretty specific definition and is most accurately applied to games of fairly specific set of features.
You can be much more flexible with the term MMO however.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This shouldn't even have to be asked, the answer is brutally obvious. Sadly, the industry doesn't have even this much sense, mass producing copy paste mirrored 5 class 5 race BG flag capture games and calling them mmorpgs.
1. When I log into a title, the title should be manufactured in such a way as to truly be built to convince me that the lore, the lands, the adventures, the PvP, is as realistically driven as possible. There will be great castles of troops guarding territories of my allies as well as my enemies...races will NOT be the same all over a map, and neither will the religions they profess. AND THEY WILL BE AT WAR! And I'm not talking about gang style pvp mechanics where a handful of folks guard a piece of turf. I'm talking nation vs nation vs nation - like in every epic saga we read, as in the most epic of fantasy movies we see.
These developers will stop reading profit charts and instead open a history book. They will learn basic concepts like, if you had an English accent and were caught in French territory during the 100 years war, chances were you'd be killed on the spot or at least imprisoned.
Fantasy gaming has started with EQ, Ultima, Dark Age of Camelot and Asheron's Call. From these early examples, new titles should have been built, following these platforms and keeping the industry legitimate.
Now we have panda bears and cash shops, E-Sports has fully evolved and players bounce between games in the same way a John treats a prostitute.
"Supporting", not "Focusing in" large-scale multiplayer interactions.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an MMORPG that doesn't support large-scale multiplayer interactions can't really be considered an MMORPG.
There is no authority to define MMO (or MMORPG). You certainly are not. The industry has a common usage. For example, Marvel Heroes is considered a MMORPGs but it certainly does NOT have many features that a classical MMORPG has. For example, it has public zones, but no consistent world.
Now, you may disagree that it is a MMORPG, and you can argue to your face blue. But the industry is just going to ignore you.
Personally i don't really care one way or another. But i will use the categorization that most people use, just to facilitate communication.
Depends on what "support" means.
Marvel heroes has no large scale gameplay. Even WOW does not have large scale interactions aside from staring at a large number of toons in a city. Is that support enough?
Personally i think this "large scale multiplayer interactions" is just irrelevant if 99% of the gameplay is small scale.
I'd argue that a persistent world / community would qualify as large scale multiplayer interaction, yes.
My problem with the modern MMO's that I've played (and the reason that I no longer play them) is that I don't feel that they have enough tools for the community as a whole to interact in a meaningful way, but I suppose that's my preference.
MMO focus for pve should be tackling hard contend.
A platform where guilds should compete each other for server or worlds 1st boss kills in challeging dungeon designs.
It should focus on creating a world where crafting / farming recources is worth your time.
PvP should be balanced and competitive both in open world / battlegrounds / arena
It should contain a free for all style for fun and get rewarded for your effort, more if you stand out of the normal crowd.
Tournaments for the heavy team players in Battlegrounds and Arena's.
World PvP should matter, you should be able to conquer the lands for the best recources.
Where wars are fought over constandly.
An open world where players want to fight in that looks epic and dynamic like woods / swamps / big canyons / deserts / amazons.
Sieges that lasts for hours and hours.
That go back and forth untill one side is totaly evicted and desimated.
I have a dream.....
So a big chatroom has large scale multiplayer interactions?
And you are right, it is your preference. Mine is different. Many have different preferences.
And what if the "world" is just a city lobby. Does that count? If so, is there a huge difference between that and a menu lobby?
A virtual world full of other real people with whom you can interact in a meaningful in-game manner; yes.
A lobby full of players who do not exist in the game-world until, for example, summoned by an external means; no.
Your "toons in a city" example highlights the difference, especially for someone such as myself who actively enjoys roleplay. If I walk through a town and see/interact with people I recognise, it adds to my enjoyment of the game.
Really? When the others are only inspecting you and comparing gearscore, or making chuck-norris jobs, or tab-out surfing and waiting for their dungeons to pop?
Personally i would make little distinction between that, and a menu lobby, since 99% of the play-time is NOT going to be in the lobby (menu or city world) anyway.
I was rather literal when answering the OP. But the reason the question is tricky is that this is about what MMO's are as much as what we want them to be.
MMO's do have a core definition, but gaming companies will obliviously try to change that definition to their benefit. They know the term MMO attracts audience and will apply it to their products no matter how borderline their game is to being a MMO. We are seeing the same thing now with the term sandbox, it is this years online gaming buzzword so every new release has to at least have sandbox elements. Again the gaming companies are making the word sandbox mean what the want it to mean to sell their game.
A game that does not have a persistent world is not a MMO. But I am hardly surprised that MH have applied that term to the game. Even if they always made it clear that it was a MMO but without a persistent world that would be fine. But as always when duping consumers you leave it to the small print.
I don't care how the industry uses the term, we have our own version of what it means. I would not expect them to use our definition, they want to give anything they sell us the status of being a MMO. And they don't care what we think, fine, that works both ways then.
At it's core, we have RPGs. MMORPGS need to be RPGs first and foremost. That means you are playing a character and that character has skills. It's not your personal skills (unless you can cast a fireball).
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"