it's only a definition that the pioneers thought most aptly described their game in an acroynym and it stuck. When Guild Wars 1 come along that caused a lot of debate as it strictly called itself not_a_mmorpg. I think games that are loosely mmorpgs are included on these sites as they have crossover qualities, and therefore players of mmorpgs are likely interested. I know I was very interested in LoL post-WoW as it was very similar and better in many ways. (eg gameplay)
uh? You mean if a site posted a game under "fantasy mmorpg", it actually means something else?
Personally, i will just take their categorization. I doubt you are a site admin and can speak for them.
If a site posts a Fantasy RPG under their Fantasy MMORPG list, because they didn't want to make a new category for a couple games, it doesn't suddenly become an MMO. It just means they don't want extra pages hosting minimal content.
Hence my point about how they treat the game everywhere else on the site like when talking about a game in an article. If they are not referring to it as an MMO under any context other than simply what their game category is called, then it's a false assumption to imply that the name of the category defines the content of all the games.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
The reason I can't endorse that article's line of thinking is that someone has to set an arbitrary line where massive begins and ends.
Is massive when hundreds of player interact simultaneously? Is it thousands? Do they have to interact within the same space? Meaning, can 5 interact in one instance while 5 interaction in another and so on until you've reached 100?
I personally dont believe in some arbitrary line, I believe in common sense. Common sense says that the game it self must be massively (WoW, EVE, etc) in order to be labeled as MMO or MMORPG, you cant achieve this purely by the size of community alone (LoL, WoT).
When you are playing through a lobby in a small map with few other people you know you arent playing an MMO or MMORPG. When you are playing in a massive game and know that there's hundreds if not thousands of other people doing all kinds of things around the game world, you know that you are now playing an MMO or MMORPG game.
So you disagree DDO, Marvel Heroes and NWO are MMORPGs, as some sites have classified them?
I know barely anything about those games since they dont interest me much.
First up ... MMORPG.com. If you click on "game list", it will say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games". What is listed under this big MMORPG game list? Amongst others ... we have
Diablo 3, LoL, DDO, the first GW, Vindictus, World of Tanks .. and many that either don't focus on, or have no "massive" MP gameplay.
LoL is listed under Fantasy MMORPG Games. Mechwarrior Online is listed under sci-fi MMORPGs, right above Eve. There are other non-massive MMOs there, you can find the other listings yourself.
DDO, and NWO, and Vindictus are on their top 10 list. Other non-massive MMOs are listed .. you can go look at their whole listing.
I suspect very few, even those managing MMO websites care very much about the strict definition of the word "massive" in the label "MMORPG". The term is used quite loosely, if LoL, Diablo, vindictus, DDO and NWO are counted.
Oh man... If you have 100s of mmorpg on a site, and few companies release games that are similar to the genre, but not really mmorpgs, but you feel that you need to show them to community.....
you don't redesign entire site, and create a sub category "almost mmorpg", or "not exactly mmorpg, but worth mentioning", you just put them all in one basket.
It doesn't mean a site decided to redefinition a genre, it is just cosmetics and web design, jesus man...
If you bring something like this up as your argument, you must be really desperate to prove your point...
I disagree with your view on massively. Even lobby type games have a massive amount of player on the servers available to play with. Everyone isn't within the same map/instance but that doesn't change the fact that a massive amount of players are available to play with.
Originally posted by Venger I disagree with your view on massively. Even lobby type games have a massive amount of player on the servers available to play with. Everyone isn't within the same map/instance but that doesn't change the fact that a massive amount of players are available to play with.
Lol, Massiveamountofplayersavailabletoplaywith Multiplayer Online Game. Basically every online game including standard shooters are now MMO's, yeah right. What's the point of the term anymore then?
Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
With the diminishing number of players in the MMO industry, a lot of online games formerly not categorized as MMOs have found themselves significantly outgrown the traditional MMOs. As a result, MMO people are now blending Guild Wars, LoL and even Farmville and such into the MMO family. The reason is simple, When champanzees are surronded by pygmy monkeys they called themselves "massive" apes but when they are in the land of 800 pound gorillas they just call every one in the room their "fellow monkeys".
Well, not only some websites are making the word "massively" ambigious. Even this year Golden Joystick has abandoned the MMO category it has been endorsing many years. Some day in the future, the word "massively" in MMO will become obsolete.
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoarIn principle I disagree with you on this, and I do not think those websites agree with you either.If a game is going to be called a Massively Mulitplayer Game, it does need to have a lot of people.LoL may not be an MMORPG, but if it can hold more people than a traditional multiplayer, it is an MMO, therefore it is massive.You may think labels are useless, and they do change. However lables are what we use to differentiate and classify things. Classification is needed to help with any kind of search or research. If I am in the mood for an MMO I don't want a spg even if there is some similarity. Labels help with recognition.Second. While this website may specialize in MMO's, it does not exclusively cater to MMO's, despite it's name. Dairy queen sells more than dairy products too.
And yet .. they list all the games i mentioned as MMORPGs.I am not looking for a debate of what MMORPG should be ... i simply don't care about labels. I am just pointing out that these sties categorize the aforementioned games as such. Not my categorization, theirs.
I didn't state they weren't. I stated if they have more people than a traditional multiplayer they are massively multiplayer in some capacity. I guess they feel those games meet that definition.
You may not care about labels but once again labels are important in search and recognition. If you don't know what something is called, it makes it harder to search for it. If you do know it is called it makes it usually much easier to search for the things that will fill whatever desire you have.
I always thought that the "massively multiplayer" in MMORPG applied to the number of possible interactions that were possible between people in a persistent and shared world. It wasn't about a set number of people who could log in, but rather the number of things they could do that would affect each other, especially in a sandbox game.
I want to say this came from an interview or article on that Garriott guy, but if it was, the interview or article is now lost to me.
Persistence has nothing to do with being classified as an MMO. If you can get thousands of people into a game world to interact with each other even if only for 1 hour intervals, its still an MMO. Just not a persistent world MMO.
And contrary to an earlier post where someone justified LoL as an MMO because a massive amount of people play it, well you are only pretending to understand what MMO means. By justifying that a 10 player game is an MMO due to the fact millions play it, you are leaving an enormous loop hole open to state that ANY multiplayer game played by a lot of people is an MMO. This means Counterstrike is now an MMO as a massive amount of people play it.
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its basic fricking english. MMO. Massively Multiplayer Online. There is nothing to argue. Learn what those words means, how an adjective works, and then learn why we classify things. I can't imagine what a Library would be like if some one like Narius was in charge of organizing... "Hey I'm looking for a book about Caesar?" - patron, "Oh, that's under the general human anything aisle" -narius. Nah... I'd rather be able to look up stuff by politics, history, biography, ancient history, science, math and so on and so forth. We categorize things for a reason.
For those who blindly let anything be called an MMO, you don't understand how the english language works, and you also let marketing tell you what to think. I'm involved in marketing and trust me, we can get you people to buy any stupid shit by telling you that you like it and we know better. You will listen. We will even lie/stretch the truth. You will listen. So let these "MMO" games draw you in. It's a shame they have to slander the label in order to get players. Some of these false-mmo games are actually pretty good... they just can't seem to attract people on their own merit.
There clearly is a distinction between MMO's and other multiplayer online games, though. Even if it is not the size of the playerbase, or the existence of a persistent world, such as is the case with League of Legends and similar games, there is still some sort of distinction that all of these sites seem to agree upon. It's also not whether or not it is an RPG, or even whether it is 3D or not.
So then, what is it? Well, let's first look at an example of a multiplayer online game that is definitely not considered an MMO: Yahoo pool. What is the difference between Yahoo pool and let's say World of Warcraft, if we are not counting massive amounts of players, persistent worlds, RPG status or 3D status. The only thing left that I can think of is that you don't play as a distinguishable character or object that other players can look at and say that's you.
That, my friends must be the distinction.
So, rather than MMO, perhaps they should be relabeled as ABMO games (avatar based multiplayer online games). I'm sure such a change would never actually take place, though.
To clarify, the avatar must actually be something you can move around within the game world along with other players in the same game world as you at the same time at some point during gameplay, not just a picture of you sitting at a table, such as with poker games, and not just you by yourself only perhaps visiting other people's areas if you feel like it, such as with Farmville. Every avatar must be able to happen upon any other avatar at any point without having to know them ahead of time to get an invitation or to be able to know where to go, either because there is a persistent common space, or because there is a randomized grouping system to put them in the same matches together.
Basically, it's considered "Massive" because you have the potential to be able to meet and interact with anyone in the world, via your avatar, rather than just chat or gameplay.
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Yes, and also other sites too.
You know WHY other sites do that? Because they're businesses. And businesses get money by covering a lot of games. By limiting yourself you limit your money. That's why places like Massively cover LoL.
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
I have nothing to say anymore
So as long as those game make it list on MMORPG.com then they automatic become MMORPG , even Farmville can turn into MMO+RPG if it list in MMORPG.com
And what we talking about in the first place?
You said about why a football game with 40-50k viewer can't called massive football game , am i right ?
And i said because it limit for only 22 players (who chase the ball on field)
Then you keep said about entertainment things for viewer ,
but it don't change face that in a football game , we only have 22 players limit
Then tell me , why a football game where we have 22 player limit can be called massive multiplayers game.
With 22 player limit for a game , it only multiplayers game.
In first post i quote , you said that "MMOs wasn't massive to begin with"
The massive part of MMO are go with the word multiplayer , not the game
it not talk about the mass of the game , but the mass of number of players.
And all very first MMOGames , there are no limit number of players can join the the game ,
That's why it called Massive , the number can join are big and not limit , it go from 1 to infinitive. That's why it called massive
Remember one thing , the "game" word mean start and end
As for MOBA , each battle (game) start and end as 10 (or less) that's why it can't be called massive player , because you know the number of player who join that game (battle)
But in MMOGame there are no limit number player from start , and it don't have "end" , the game server don't automatic close when last boss (main goal) get killed , that's why you can't tell the number of player who join in
Because you can't tell how many players you can have in a MMOGame , it called Massive Multiplayers.
Anyway , i don't think i will go deeper than this , i ready post what i mean so i will call it end of my discussion here . Sorry
I'm surprised anyone can call Diablo 3 an MMORPG. Then again there is more interaction on a large scale in that game due to its market place than Call of Duty, and I've had people try to make that arguement to me in the past, but that only simplifies the old process of hoping between servers for trade plus Blizzard wanted to make a few extra bucks by letting people use cash to buy in game items.
Anyway... In my opinion, if a game isn't massive then it doesn't deserve the MMO tag. Most of the "MMOFPS" games out there are little more than a normal multiplayer FPS that you can only play online. There's nothing massive about them.
An MMO FPS would be more like APB or Planetside 2. Huge world, tons of players. I would even say that MAG is an MMOFPS, even if it was lobby based rather than an open world game. Just because it supported up to like.. 200 or so players in a match. That's a massive scale.
Just because a game is always online and you're connecting to a companies server to play it doesn't make it an MMO, it's just an online game. Vindictus may try to call itself an MMO but all you're really doing is running around in a 3d lobby until you take off on the next match. Raids are the closest thing that game has to an MMO but even then the few I've been on seem to make them the smallest part of the game since you just go in there with like 16 players to beat up on a big angry boss.
But you know, people are going to be silly and call small multiplayer games MMOs because they can. This doesn't make the smaller games any less fun than the massive ones, it's just something I find silly.
Besides if we're going to be calling every small scale multiplayer game an MMO then it's going to be a real hassle to find actual MMO games.
Originally posted by Aysono Realistically, MMOs were not really that "massive" to begin with. I think It was just a term coined strictly for marketing purpose.
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
I have nothing to say anymore
So as long as those game make it list on MMORPG.com then they automatic become MMORPG , even Farmville can turn into MMO+RPG if it list in MMORPG.com
And what we talking about in the first place?
You said about why a football game with 40-50k viewer can't called massive football game , am i right ?
And i said because it limit for only 22 players (who chase the ball on field)
Then you keep said about entertainment things for viewer ,
but it don't change face that in a football game , we only have 22 players limit
Then tell me , why a football game where we have 22 player limit can be called massive multiplayers game.
With 22 player limit for a game , it only multiplayers game.
In first post i quote , you said that "MMOs wasn't massive to begin with"
The massive part of MMO are go with the word multiplayer , not the game
it not talk about the mass of the game , but the mass of number of players.
And all very first MMOGames , there are no limit number of players can join the the game ,
That's why it called Massive , the number can join are big and not limit , it go from 1 to infinitive. That's why it called massive
Remember one thing , the "game" word mean start and end
As for MOBA , each battle (game) start and end as 10 (or less) that's why it can't be called massive player , because you know the number of player who join that game (battle)
But in MMOGame there are no limit number player from start , and it don't have "end" , the game server don't automatic close when last boss (main goal) get killed , that's why you can't tell the number of player who join in
Because you can't tell how many players you can have in a MMOGame , it called Massive Multiplayers.
Anyway , i don't think i will go deeper than this , i ready post what i mean so i will call it end of my discussion here . Sorry
Again, let me say this again, that's your definition, which is "massively" is used to describe the "number of players online" but can't "massively" be also used as an adjective to describe the quality of the game? or how the participants feel about the games?
From your point of view, WoW may be a "massively multiplayer" role playing game because it has a "massively" 7 million+ (multi)players. But please bear in mind your viewpoint doesn't stop other people from using the word "massively" in lieu of "great", "grand" or "marvallous".
Again, let me say this again, that's your definition, which is "massively" is used to describe the "number of players online" but can't "massively" be also used as an adjective to describe the quality of the game? or how the participants feel about the games?
From your point of view, WoW may be a "massively multiplayer" role playing game because it has a "massively" 7 million+ (multi)players. But please bear in mind your viewpoint doesn't stop other people from using the word "massively" in lieu of "great", "grand" or "marvallous".
No. Massively is an Adverb of the Adjective Multiplayer, it is a qualifier for multiplayer.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Your definition of MMORPGs seems to include all online games. Come on that's nonsense.
I don't mind there being MMO's with midget worlds but lets call them something else Midget MMO's or the like. OK maybe marketing won't accept that how about Mini MMOs?
You cannot put MMOs like EQ, AC, Lotro, WH, DAOC, DF in the same basket as MMOs like Terra, Perfect World and all the other Mini MMO's.
Gaming sites want to maximise their audience and that means maximising the number of games they cover. Dark Ages got a review on this site, not even you I think will call a single player game a MMO. So it is not surprising that so many games on the games list of all these sites are not MMO's. This does not bother me too much as I like to keep up with various types of online 'MMO like' games.
If you go to a general gaming mag site you get all the games, which is as it should be. If you want that, that's where you should go for it Nari.
The gaming industry has for years used the term MMO to indicate any type of online game. I do not think they are happy with the confusion this must cause. But marketing likes it because it gives sub par online games the kudos of being a MMO. We already have some new terms like MMOFPS which are generally understood and accepted, lets keep going down that line.
The staff on this site have a very VERY loose definition of what MMORPG means. Reall they're just an online game website, they'll cover anything if there's any interest or money to be made off it.
Hell, Age of Empires Online is even on this site, and that game lets you play with a MAX of 4 people.
Yes, and also other sites too.
You know WHY other sites do that? Because they're businesses. And businesses get money by covering a lot of games. By limiting yourself you limit your money. That's why places like Massively cover LoL.
I should be surprised that nobody understands this, but sadly I'm not.
Its always about money. Pick any subject, ask anyone why they do anything, and the answer is almost always money.
Also, the definition of MMO has changed so much since I first started years ago, seems no two people can agree. So this whole discussion is a waste of time....lol
Comments
it's only a definition that the pioneers thought most aptly described their game in an acroynym and it stuck. When Guild Wars 1 come along that caused a lot of debate as it strictly called itself not_a_mmorpg.
I think games that are loosely mmorpgs are included on these sites as they have crossover qualities, and therefore players of mmorpgs are likely interested. I know I was very interested in LoL post-WoW as it was very similar and better in many ways. (eg gameplay)
If a site posts a Fantasy RPG under their Fantasy MMORPG list, because they didn't want to make a new category for a couple games, it doesn't suddenly become an MMO. It just means they don't want extra pages hosting minimal content.
Hence my point about how they treat the game everywhere else on the site like when talking about a game in an article. If they are not referring to it as an MMO under any context other than simply what their game category is called, then it's a false assumption to imply that the name of the category defines the content of all the games.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I know barely anything about those games since they dont interest me much.
Oh man... If you have 100s of mmorpg on a site, and few companies release games that are similar to the genre, but not really mmorpgs, but you feel that you need to show them to community.....
you don't redesign entire site, and create a sub category "almost mmorpg", or "not exactly mmorpg, but worth mentioning", you just put them all in one basket.
It doesn't mean a site decided to redefinition a genre, it is just cosmetics and web design, jesus man...
If you bring something like this up as your argument, you must be really desperate to prove your point...
mmobomb means their game list is about bomb games.
good thread !
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
The meaning behind MMORPG has always been literal its the people who started twisting it and using it wrong
when we go back before WoW people knew how to use the word (or genre)
world of tanks is a MMO(G) not MMORPG
taking things as facts that are stated in the internet is dangerous business my friend
just because "they" said so doesnt make it true
http://www.yourdictionary.com/mmorpg
Lol, Massiveamountofplayersavailabletoplaywith Multiplayer Online Game. Basically every online game including standard shooters are now MMO's, yeah right. What's the point of the term anymore then?
Even back in their glorious days, there weren't too many MMOs with 30-50k concurrent players online.
You can easily find 40-50k people in a regular baseball/football game in the US or a soccer game in Europe. You can also find tens of thousands of people in a concert. Even thousands of people attend some churches too. Can somebody tell me why nobody ever said they have attended Massive Baseball games, Massive Soccer Games, Massive Concerts or Massive Church Services? Amen!
With the diminishing number of players in the MMO industry, a lot of online games formerly not categorized as MMOs have found themselves significantly outgrown the traditional MMOs. As a result, MMO people are now blending Guild Wars, LoL and even Farmville and such into the MMO family. The reason is simple, When champanzees are surronded by pygmy monkeys they called themselves "massive" apes but when they are in the land of 800 pound gorillas they just call every one in the room their "fellow monkeys".
Well, not only some websites are making the word "massively" ambigious. Even this year Golden Joystick has abandoned the MMO category it has been endorsing many years. Some day in the future, the word "massively" in MMO will become obsolete.
Because there are only 22 players limited chase after the ball while 50k watch them play , they not join in.
Then again , if 50k+22 players chase after the ball in same time then what we should we call it ?
also
Massive + multiplayer online + RPG are difference than massive + soccer games.
So...every game for about a decade. How is that different from this, our current site?
Persistence has nothing to do with being classified as an MMO. If you can get thousands of people into a game world to interact with each other even if only for 1 hour intervals, its still an MMO. Just not a persistent world MMO.
And contrary to an earlier post where someone justified LoL as an MMO because a massive amount of people play it, well you are only pretending to understand what MMO means. By justifying that a 10 player game is an MMO due to the fact millions play it, you are leaving an enormous loop hole open to state that ANY multiplayer game played by a lot of people is an MMO. This means Counterstrike is now an MMO as a massive amount of people play it.
I've said it before and I will say it again. Its basic fricking english. MMO. Massively Multiplayer Online. There is nothing to argue. Learn what those words means, how an adjective works, and then learn why we classify things. I can't imagine what a Library would be like if some one like Narius was in charge of organizing... "Hey I'm looking for a book about Caesar?" - patron, "Oh, that's under the general human anything aisle" -narius. Nah... I'd rather be able to look up stuff by politics, history, biography, ancient history, science, math and so on and so forth. We categorize things for a reason.
For those who blindly let anything be called an MMO, you don't understand how the english language works, and you also let marketing tell you what to think. I'm involved in marketing and trust me, we can get you people to buy any stupid shit by telling you that you like it and we know better. You will listen. We will even lie/stretch the truth. You will listen. So let these "MMO" games draw you in. It's a shame they have to slander the label in order to get players. Some of these false-mmo games are actually pretty good... they just can't seem to attract people on their own merit.
There clearly is a distinction between MMO's and other multiplayer online games, though. Even if it is not the size of the playerbase, or the existence of a persistent world, such as is the case with League of Legends and similar games, there is still some sort of distinction that all of these sites seem to agree upon. It's also not whether or not it is an RPG, or even whether it is 3D or not.
So then, what is it? Well, let's first look at an example of a multiplayer online game that is definitely not considered an MMO: Yahoo pool. What is the difference between Yahoo pool and let's say World of Warcraft, if we are not counting massive amounts of players, persistent worlds, RPG status or 3D status. The only thing left that I can think of is that you don't play as a distinguishable character or object that other players can look at and say that's you.
That, my friends must be the distinction.
So, rather than MMO, perhaps they should be relabeled as ABMO games (avatar based multiplayer online games). I'm sure such a change would never actually take place, though.
To clarify, the avatar must actually be something you can move around within the game world along with other players in the same game world as you at the same time at some point during gameplay, not just a picture of you sitting at a table, such as with poker games, and not just you by yourself only perhaps visiting other people's areas if you feel like it, such as with Farmville. Every avatar must be able to happen upon any other avatar at any point without having to know them ahead of time to get an invitation or to be able to know where to go, either because there is a persistent common space, or because there is a randomized grouping system to put them in the same matches together.
Basically, it's considered "Massive" because you have the potential to be able to meet and interact with anyone in the world, via your avatar, rather than just chat or gameplay.
<.<
You don't get the point that spectator sports are also sports. Sports are entertainment. Games are entertainment. E-sports are also entertainment. You don't have to be the players on the field in a ball game or the musicians in a concert or the pastor in an evangelical service to participate in these events. Participation is one of, if not, the most important things in an entertainment. Without user participation no entertainment will survive.
The reality is although virtual reality is still years ahead of our time, virtual shopping malls, concerts, etc are already made available by advanced technologies. It won't take long before participants find themselves playing stickball or shooting hoops online with their buddies in their neighborhoods while having their girlfriends cheerleading the virtual events.
Role playing is also going to be replaced by virtual participation. Participants will also find themselves immersed in realistic stories rather than just killing mobs, getting loots, rinse and repeat... Don't you also find the RPG category in Golden Joystick this year replaced by "Story Telling"?
God ,
what kind of game without players , you can't call peoples who only watch the game and wasn't play it players
You get entertainment when you watch something then you are watcher.
Those who play game called player and those who watch are watcher ,
idk why i even have to explain this
And i don't see the virtual reality part have any do in topic about MMORPGs and Massive
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
It is your perception and definition against others. A lot of people have expressed their opinions E-Sports are not sports but Obama and governments of other countries apparently have different views. Whose opinions count? We all know. Guild Wars used to be called a Co-Op online game but mysteriously it has been dubbed an MMORPG now. LoL and other MOBAs have also called MMORPGs. So have Farmville, Marvel: Avenger Alliance and many other social media games been featured in hundreds of MMORPG sites. It is just reality.
The virtual reality part is an illustration on what is "massive" and what are not. Reality is the only Truly Massive thing, Truly Massive as in 7 Billion+ followers strong and growing. Reality hurts sometimes but if people don't accept it they can only be escapists who try to seek refuge in "massive worlds" they may call "Alone in the Desert" or "THE ONE of the truly massive MMORPG".
Massiveness exists only in one's thoughts. There is no absolute rights or wrongs in one's thoughts. Your thoughts just may not represent the "massive" opinions of the real world. And I can tell you that you are absolutely wrong if you think only players are the one who can enjoy a game. Spectators, fans, investors, owners and even the general public can all have interests in games just like they can have interests in other entertainment such as movies, sports etc.
You know WHY other sites do that? Because they're businesses. And businesses get money by covering a lot of games. By limiting yourself you limit your money. That's why places like Massively cover LoL.
I have nothing to say anymore
So as long as those game make it list on MMORPG.com then they automatic become MMORPG , even Farmville can turn into MMO+RPG if it list in MMORPG.com
And what we talking about in the first place?You said about why a football game with 40-50k viewer can't called massive football game , am i right ?
And i said because it limit for only 22 players (who chase the ball on field)
Then you keep said about entertainment things for viewer ,
but it don't change face that in a football game , we only have 22 players limit
Then tell me , why a football game where we have 22 player limit can be called massive multiplayers game.
With 22 player limit for a game , it only multiplayers game.
In first post i quote , you said that "MMOs wasn't massive to begin with"
The massive part of MMO are go with the word multiplayer , not the game
it not talk about the mass of the game , but the mass of number of players.
And all very first MMOGames , there are no limit number of players can join the the game ,
That's why it called Massive , the number can join are big and not limit , it go from 1 to infinitive. That's why it called massive
Remember one thing , the "game" word mean start and end
As for MOBA , each battle (game) start and end as 10 (or less) that's why it can't be called massive player , because you know the number of player who join that game (battle)
But in MMOGame there are no limit number player from start , and it don't have "end" , the game server don't automatic close when last boss (main goal) get killed , that's why you can't tell the number of player who join in
Because you can't tell how many players you can have in a MMOGame , it called Massive Multiplayers.
Anyway , i don't think i will go deeper than this , i ready post what i mean so i will call it end of my discussion here . Sorry
I'm surprised anyone can call Diablo 3 an MMORPG. Then again there is more interaction on a large scale in that game due to its market place than Call of Duty, and I've had people try to make that arguement to me in the past, but that only simplifies the old process of hoping between servers for trade plus Blizzard wanted to make a few extra bucks by letting people use cash to buy in game items.
Anyway... In my opinion, if a game isn't massive then it doesn't deserve the MMO tag. Most of the "MMOFPS" games out there are little more than a normal multiplayer FPS that you can only play online. There's nothing massive about them.
An MMO FPS would be more like APB or Planetside 2. Huge world, tons of players. I would even say that MAG is an MMOFPS, even if it was lobby based rather than an open world game. Just because it supported up to like.. 200 or so players in a match. That's a massive scale.
Just because a game is always online and you're connecting to a companies server to play it doesn't make it an MMO, it's just an online game. Vindictus may try to call itself an MMO but all you're really doing is running around in a 3d lobby until you take off on the next match. Raids are the closest thing that game has to an MMO but even then the few I've been on seem to make them the smallest part of the game since you just go in there with like 16 players to beat up on a big angry boss.
But you know, people are going to be silly and call small multiplayer games MMOs because they can. This doesn't make the smaller games any less fun than the massive ones, it's just something I find silly.
Besides if we're going to be calling every small scale multiplayer game an MMO then it's going to be a real hassle to find actual MMO games.
Kingdom of Knights - Community Manager
As if MMO sites like this one aren't directly impacted by money.
MMORPG.com will label anything a MMO if it makes them money. I don't really see it being different for any other large MMO site.
Again, let me say this again, that's your definition, which is "massively" is used to describe the "number of players online" but can't "massively" be also used as an adjective to describe the quality of the game? or how the participants feel about the games?
From your point of view, WoW may be a "massively multiplayer" role playing game because it has a "massively" 7 million+ (multi)players. But please bear in mind your viewpoint doesn't stop other people from using the word "massively" in lieu of "great", "grand" or "marvallous".
No. Massively is an Adverb of the Adjective Multiplayer, it is a qualifier for multiplayer.
Oh not this again Nari, slow day at the office?
Your definition of MMORPGs seems to include all online games. Come on that's nonsense.
I don't mind there being MMO's with midget worlds but lets call them something else Midget MMO's or the like. OK maybe marketing won't accept that how about Mini MMOs?
You cannot put MMOs like EQ, AC, Lotro, WH, DAOC, DF in the same basket as MMOs like Terra, Perfect World and all the other Mini MMO's.
Gaming sites want to maximise their audience and that means maximising the number of games they cover. Dark Ages got a review on this site, not even you I think will call a single player game a MMO. So it is not surprising that so many games on the games list of all these sites are not MMO's. This does not bother me too much as I like to keep up with various types of online 'MMO like' games.
If you go to a general gaming mag site you get all the games, which is as it should be. If you want that, that's where you should go for it Nari.
The gaming industry has for years used the term MMO to indicate any type of online game. I do not think they are happy with the confusion this must cause. But marketing likes it because it gives sub par online games the kudos of being a MMO. We already have some new terms like MMOFPS which are generally understood and accepted, lets keep going down that line.
I should be surprised that nobody understands this, but sadly I'm not.
Its always about money. Pick any subject, ask anyone why they do anything, and the answer is almost always money.
Also, the definition of MMO has changed so much since I first started years ago, seems no two people can agree. So this whole discussion is a waste of time....lol