lol .. the OP is not the first or the last who cannot handle the changes in MMO.
Oh, he has a point. MMO has changed drastically, and certainly people are even taken issues with what are classified as MMOs on the game list of THIS website.
But at the end of the day, the era of AAA classical MMOs are gone. Many wishfully think that they will come back and discuss all sort of schemes (oh .. only if there is a $40 sub .. oh .. only if someone revives SWG .. oh .. only if developers will make a virtual world game ... ), they just have to live with beating the dead horse of MMO definition, solo vs group, f2p vs sub, .... for a little longer (or may be forever).
lol .. the OP is not the first or the last who cannot handle the changes in MMO.
Oh, he has a point. MMO has changed drastically, and certainly people are even taken issues with what are classified as MMOs on the game list of THIS website.
But at the end of the day, the era of AAA classical MMOs are gone. Many wishfully think that they will come back and discuss all sort of schemes (oh .. only if there is a $40 sub .. oh .. only if someone revives SWG .. oh .. only if developers will make a virtual world game ... ), they just have to live with beating the dead horse of MMO definition, solo vs group, f2p vs sub, .... for a little longer (or may be forever).
MMORPG's were a fluke in time that capitalized on online gaming being a new thing. First gen mmorpgs were glorious because the social aspect of being in an RPG was awesome, it drew in many people who played lobby based shooters and RTS games but where there was little in game interaction between players. It was all so new and there was nothing else out there like it.
Fast forward to today and i can get that social interaction from a single player game, on steam. Online gaming is everywhere... All those people who were mmorpgers were all in game for different reasons....each of those reasons is now its own game genre with its own online social aspect. So the jack of all trades, make everyone happy, online playground that MMORPGS evolved into is not worth the investment nor dev time.
PVPers went to MOBAS where the pvp was pure and fair.
Sandbox junkies can pick up a $20 private server based game on steam and either have a gankfest or carebear builders paradise whatever floats their boat.
Storyline pve-ers can get a single player RPG or one with co-op
Dungeon runners and raiders can play co-op monster hunter games
Grind fest loving loot farmers can play POE/Diablo 3
All of which do it better than and mmorpg could as a full game for less money, less bullshit, less downward spiral of community ect.
Everyone can get their best iteration of what they loved about mmropgs done better without the BS attached to threading all aspects together and intertwining them.
MMORPGS evolved to attract the same size crows WOW did and those first gen mmorpgs did. They did so by becoming an online playground that appealed to all but didnt do any of those playground aspects very well vs their non mmorpg specialized counterparts listed above.
Most the people here complaining about what could have been, what went wrong, and why its a dead genre have failed to notice the explosion in online social gaming elsewhere. No one wants to devote 10 years of their life making a game thats going to be over hyped then downward spiral and their names dragged through the mud for only providing 5000 hours of gaming for their $60 purchase and $15 a month for 3 months. Investors dont want to gamble the hundreds of millions it will cost to interweave all the above mentioned game types into one, make sure all the systems work flawlessly together while 5k people interact in the same enviroment and demand new content monthly that is also flawless. Too much expectations and demands and online rioting if it isn't flawless.
MMORPG golden age was a result of everyone misunderstanding the game market based on a few examples that capitalized on doing social online game first...id personally rather play games that dont need a huge active and permanent player base to be fun. I can get everything a mmorpg once provided me with a game on steam for cheap, and i can play it in 5 years and still enjoy it unlike the mmorpgs that had servers shut down and rely on huge crowds of active players to be interesting.
Even this website and forum lost all function when they decided to flood the game list with anything that is a game rather than sticking to actual mmorpgs. Would be nice to have a source where i can reliably track older and upcoming mmorpgs without having to wade through a game list that was last tended to back in 2007 but has been piling on any game they can....and even then i can get a more organized and easy to use forum for mmorpgs on steam. Still have fond memories of this place before the ban waves of 2010 thinned out and wrecked the discussions, dont think this site ever recovered from that.
lol .. the OP is not the first or the last who cannot handle the changes in MMO.
Oh, he has a point. MMO has changed drastically, and certainly people are even taken issues with what are classified as MMOs on the game list of THIS website.
But at the end of the day, the era of AAA classical MMOs are gone. Many wishfully think that they will come back and discuss all sort of schemes (oh .. only if there is a $40 sub .. oh .. only if someone revives SWG .. oh .. only if developers will make a virtual world game ... ), they just have to live with beating the dead horse of MMO definition, solo vs group, f2p vs sub, .... for a little longer (or may be forever).
Well met, Crusader!
hmm .. crusader on what? Crusader to laugh at those who cannot handle a changing genre? Sign me up, that sounds fun.
MMO stands simply for the amount of people playing together in a shared experience. It specifically states a massive amount of people playing TOGETHER.
It doesn't matter if you like the game. If you see at least 100's of people in a shared game world (not literally a chat world eg; lobby with no action), than its an MMO. It doesn't matter if the game is hollow. It doesn't matter if the server is up for only 15 minutes. It doesn't matter if you level up. It doesn't matter if there is any form of persistence at all. It only matters if there is a massive amount of people playing it all TOGETHER in ONE shared experience. The argument for "how many is massive?" is also getting old. If 64 players feels like a lot, its pretty easy to say a few hundred would feel massive in comparison. This directly related to the birth of the descriptor "mmo", as it was first used to let people know that Ultima Online had a massive amount of people in the game world versus the standard multiplayer games of the time.
Their really is not much to see here anymore. Not because their is nothing to talk about that hasn't been covered but the lack of mmos. Because of a this lack we can only express our feelings.
I mentioned a few things before, but their true:
One of my unpopular ones is the definition of what an mmo is. We throw this word around like it's trash. The so called open minded posters say they "evolved"......... This is absolutely NOT TRUE...... They are now something else..... Many often say, they are off line solo games where you log in and see other players around you. PvE is a now mini game. It's something you do when your feeling frisky !..... The fact is, their designed where no one needs anyone.
Not much to talk about anymore, the most popular GW2, FF14, and ESO, and BDO are glorified playgrounds not mmos.
PVPers went to MOBAS where the pvp was pure and fair.
Sandbox junkies can pick up a $20 private server based game on steam and either have a gankfest or carebear builders paradise whatever floats their boat.
Storyline pve-ers can get a single player RPG or one with co-op
Dungeon runners and raiders can play co-op monster hunter games
Grind fest loving loot farmers can play POE/Diablo 3
PvP: There were always PvP games out there. Diablo, RTSs, FPS... PvP in MMORPGs was always different compared to other genre, and yes to mobas too.
Sandbox: SWG, Ultima Online, etc. were always different and better than modern Sandbox games.
Storyline: Holy shit, are you kidding me. Story were never a reason to play a MMORPG. Ultima Online, FFXI, Lineage, RO or Everquest never collided with games like Baldurs Gate or Ultima VII... NEVER!!! Why should they today?
Dungons: Monster Hunter has nothing to do with dungeons of a MMORPG. Especially old not-instanced dungeons.
Grind: There were always games to grind. Diablo 1, 2 or old grindfest games like wizardry never collided with MMORPGs.
I see it like the TE. All modern MMORPGs or more called MMOs are NOT MMORPGs. Just occupational therapy.
It's not just a lack of mmorpg's, but from what I have seen, the general community here has no idea what an mmorpg is (because it's been too long since one existed), and also most the community doesn't even want an mmorpg (which I still find ironic since this is mmorpg.com... I mean I don't go around posting on something like mofps.com). But it is what it is. It isn't going to get any better or change.
the whole 'oh my god its not got to be an MMO' is so lame and antiquated.
The rule set and game experience between an MMO and a multiplayer dedicated server is nearly exactly the same in respect to what can and can not happen. making that kind of demarcation is just silly\
HOWEVER...I dont agree with calling something an MMO that is tehcnically not one. but i have no problem comparing features of an MMo to that of a multiplayer game or even a single player game frankly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's not just a lack of mmorpg's, but from what I have seen, the general community here has no idea what an mmorpg is (because it's been too long since one existed), and also most the community doesn't even want an mmorpg (which I still find ironic since this is mmorpg.com... I mean I don't go around posting on something like mofps.com). But it is what it is. It isn't going to get any better or change.
That is why the definition of the label MMO is broadened. If no one cares for the traditional MMORPGs, there are only two path forward (aside from closing down the site).
a) broaden the definition, and hope that it will include something people like. b) change the name .. may be this site should be "MORPG.com" .. just get rid of "massively" and it will be fine.
Comments
Oh, he has a point. MMO has changed drastically, and certainly people are even taken issues with what are classified as MMOs on the game list of THIS website.
But at the end of the day, the era of AAA classical MMOs are gone. Many wishfully think that they will come back and discuss all sort of schemes (oh .. only if there is a $40 sub .. oh .. only if someone revives SWG .. oh .. only if developers will make a virtual world game ... ), they just have to live with beating the dead horse of MMO definition, solo vs group, f2p vs sub, .... for a little longer (or may be forever).
Fast forward to today and i can get that social interaction from a single player game, on steam. Online gaming is everywhere... All those people who were mmorpgers were all in game for different reasons....each of those reasons is now its own game genre with its own online social aspect. So the jack of all trades, make everyone happy, online playground that MMORPGS evolved into is not worth the investment nor dev time.
PVPers went to MOBAS where the pvp was pure and fair.
Sandbox junkies can pick up a $20 private server based game on steam and either have a gankfest or carebear builders paradise whatever floats their boat.
Storyline pve-ers can get a single player RPG or one with co-op
Dungeon runners and raiders can play co-op monster hunter games
Grind fest loving loot farmers can play POE/Diablo 3
All of which do it better than and mmorpg could as a full game for less money, less bullshit, less downward spiral of community ect.
Everyone can get their best iteration of what they loved about mmropgs done better without the BS attached to threading all aspects together and intertwining them.
MMORPGS evolved to attract the same size crows WOW did and those first gen mmorpgs did. They did so by becoming an online playground that appealed to all but didnt do any of those playground aspects very well vs their non mmorpg specialized counterparts listed above.
Most the people here complaining about what could have been, what went wrong, and why its a dead genre have failed to notice the explosion in online social gaming elsewhere. No one wants to devote 10 years of their life making a game thats going to be over hyped then downward spiral and their names dragged through the mud for only providing 5000 hours of gaming for their $60 purchase and $15 a month for 3 months. Investors dont want to gamble the hundreds of millions it will cost to interweave all the above mentioned game types into one, make sure all the systems work flawlessly together while 5k people interact in the same enviroment and demand new content monthly that is also flawless. Too much expectations and demands and online rioting if it isn't flawless.
MMORPG golden age was a result of everyone misunderstanding the game market based on a few examples that capitalized on doing social online game first...id personally rather play games that dont need a huge active and permanent player base to be fun. I can get everything a mmorpg once provided me with a game on steam for cheap, and i can play it in 5 years and still enjoy it unlike the mmorpgs that had servers shut down and rely on huge crowds of active players to be interesting.
Even this website and forum lost all function when they decided to flood the game list with anything that is a game rather than sticking to actual mmorpgs. Would be nice to have a source where i can reliably track older and upcoming mmorpgs without having to wade through a game list that was last tended to back in 2007 but has been piling on any game they can....and even then i can get a more organized and easy to use forum for mmorpgs on steam. Still have fond memories of this place before the ban waves of 2010 thinned out and wrecked the discussions, dont think this site ever recovered from that.
hmm .. crusader on what? Crusader to laugh at those who cannot handle a changing genre? Sign me up, that sounds fun.
It doesn't matter if you like the game. If you see at least 100's of people in a shared game world (not literally a chat world eg; lobby with no action), than its an MMO. It doesn't matter if the game is hollow. It doesn't matter if the server is up for only 15 minutes. It doesn't matter if you level up. It doesn't matter if there is any form of persistence at all. It only matters if there is a massive amount of people playing it all TOGETHER in ONE shared experience. The argument for "how many is massive?" is also getting old. If 64 players feels like a lot, its pretty easy to say a few hundred would feel massive in comparison. This directly related to the birth of the descriptor "mmo", as it was first used to let people know that Ultima Online had a massive amount of people in the game world versus the standard multiplayer games of the time.
Anyway, thanks for the official definition, I think everyone already understand this.
Politically correct, this is true. Not so politically correct, we don't have even one.
100% agree
PvP: There were always PvP games out there. Diablo, RTSs, FPS... PvP in MMORPGs was always different compared to other genre, and yes to mobas too.
Sandbox: SWG, Ultima Online, etc. were always different and better than modern Sandbox games.
Storyline: Holy shit, are you kidding me. Story were never a reason to play a MMORPG. Ultima Online, FFXI, Lineage, RO or Everquest never collided with games like Baldurs Gate or Ultima VII... NEVER!!! Why should they today?
Dungons: Monster Hunter has nothing to do with dungeons of a MMORPG. Especially old not-instanced dungeons.
Grind: There were always games to grind. Diablo 1, 2 or old grindfest games like wizardry never collided with MMORPGs.
I see it like the TE. All modern MMORPGs or more called MMOs are NOT MMORPGs. Just occupational therapy.
The rule set and game experience between an MMO and a multiplayer dedicated server is nearly exactly the same in respect to what can and can not happen. making that kind of demarcation is just silly\
HOWEVER...I dont agree with calling something an MMO that is tehcnically not one.
but i have no problem comparing features of an MMo to that of a multiplayer game or even a single player game frankly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That is why the definition of the label MMO is broadened. If no one cares for the traditional MMORPGs, there are only two path forward (aside from closing down the site).
a) broaden the definition, and hope that it will include something people like.
b) change the name .. may be this site should be "MORPG.com" .. just get rid of "massively" and it will be fine.
I guess the site OP like (a) better.