To the people calling people who think the MMO is changing the "Minority voices".. You know why WoW hasn't done classic WoW server yet? Because the market of gamers who want that compared to the experience they currently offer is too small! The people who cry about the bubble bursting and they want old school mmos back is very small compared to the entire picture. Stop acting like the only people who enjoy MMOs are people who played classic MMO games. You don't have to know what G4TV was in order to have a deep appreciation for MMOs in this era of Streamlined MMOs.. stop the bullshit!
This is what's known as a Straw man. You're countering an argument that was never made in the first place. People here aren't saying anything bad about new games like Destiny 2. And they're not saying anything about people wanting a classic mmo experience. We're simply saying that we know how to properly classify things. Yes, it's a fact that classic style MMORPG's have waned in popularity and co-op multiplayer style games have vastly increased in popularity. That doesn't somehow magically make those newer, more popular games MMO's.
When bands started playing a heavier, darker version of rock and roll, people called it heavy metal, because it was significantly different than the music before it. If people just lumped all bands with guitars and drums into the "rock and roll" category, then we'd be putting the Rolling Stones and Slayer together, when in reality they're very different styles.
I don't like the topic because it's been beaten to death on here and there's nothing new for anyone to say about it
wow wow wow .. isn't the primary strength of this forum "beating of the dead horse"?
And it is not about you. Sure, you don't like the topic. So? I don't like MOBAs too. You don't see me writing to the CEO of riot and asking them to shut LoL down.
It is a free world. Don't like the topic, read and post on another. It is not like you are forced to read this topic.
When bands started playing a heavier, darker version of rock and roll, people called it heavy metal, because it was significantly different than the music before it. If people just lumped all bands with guitars and drums into the "rock and roll" category, then we'd be putting the Rolling Stones and Slayer together, when in reality they're very different styles.
There are people to this day that insist Led Zeppelin is heavy metal. Morons.
No offense, OP, but I think the mods should really start locking some of the threads here.
How many threads regarding what an MMO is does this forum need?
WTF is an MMO, is Destiny 2 an MMO, MMO definition has evolved...just another weekend at mmorpg.com.
Lock it for what? You can't handle somebody having a opinion that you don't share?
This is exactly how you are lol. When people here try to express their view point, you just call them old farts and that time has passed us by. I hate to break it to you, but classic gaming is never going away. Twitch is full of streams playing classic games both MMOs and all kind of other genres. Your war on these forums against older style gaming is getting old, I really wish the mods would remove these stupid threads.
I think it is kind of funny how you are gushing all over WoW a few months ago, and now MMOs are a dying genre.
edit: When are the moderators going to do something about these posters? They using nothing but ad hominem attacks and making multiple posts on the same subject.
The meaning of MMO has never changed, the games themselves have changed, the definition remains the same, Massively (hundreds or thousands) Multiplayer ( at same time ) Online (net DUH!)
Nothing about that has changed, what has changed are idiots calling games which at any one time only allow four people to play together an mmo, NO!.. Just NO!.
Now onto the topic as that is what this thread is about
The definition of MMOs just needs to be updated is all. Or maybe it stays as it is, and many MMOs then lose the "MMO" label.
Is the definition to remain Massively Multiplayer like the old times? While like I said, nothing massively multiplayer about 6 man dungeons in WoW or small instances, so that would then make WoW not an "MMO" by oldschool definitions. Along with many other co-op based themepark "MMOs" or any other "MMO" that heavily instances their game (like Star Citizen).
Or does the definition get updated and encompass a huge range of games? Many MMOs then keep their label, and games like Destiny 2 can officially be considered MMOs.
MMO means Massively Multiplayer Online, the problem is not what those letters mean, it is how people like you try to apply them.
For instance, you are trying to say WoW is not an MMORPG because it has some small instances.
Those small instances do not change the fact that each WoW server can hold thousands of players at the same time, and those thousands of players can all run around the game world, interact with each other, and the whole game world, as they see fit.
Personally, I say if a game cannot support at least hundreds of players per server, does not have a persistent world that those players can run around while interacting with other and the game world itself, then it is not an MMO.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
There's already a new term being used that captures MMOs and not-so-MMOs alike and would stop all these debates once you start using it too: Shared World.
I still think this site should change it's named to sharedworlds.com.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Using WoW and instanced dungeons as an example of changing from what an MMO is shows how little you even know. MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online. Very simple, very direct. If you can get a massive amount of people online on the same game at the same time where they interact with each other in the same world then it's an MMO. If you log in to a screen or world that is limited to a few people and the only time you interact with other people is through a queue system then it's not an MMO. Is it multiplayer? Absolutely no contest. Is it online? Without a doubt. You're just missing the key ingredient to finish it up, Massively. 20 or even 100 people is not massively multiplayer.
It is very cut and dry, there is nothing confusing about it. The "old school" players are not the ones that need to let it rest and are not the ones "clinging". Just give it up already. You can't win.
Here is the thing... WoW allows in the open world for thousands or more people playing together in the same virtual world. THIS is what a morph is.
Guild Wars one for example was not a MMORPG, it was a Cooperative Online RPG. Essentially a graphical lobby based RPG. Destiny is essentially a FPS with cooperative play, with a graphical lobby system. It is not a MMORPG, but what does that matter? I find that the need to classify a genre now is almost pointless.
If Destiny is a MMO, then so is Call of Duty.
MMORPG is not about the amount of players playing at once, it is more about the idea of a virtual world with thousands of people ABLE to play at once, hundred of which in the same area of a persistent online world. However even this line has been blurred so badly it is almost pointless to attempt to classify MMOs today.
For example Crowfall is considered a MMORPG, however shares more in common with a MOBA than a MMORPG.
Well that is my ramble on this. Just play what you enjoy... Genres only help you find games you may like.
I agree with your point about its not about the number of people, its the idea of a virtual world.
anyway.. playing absolver
But you are not agreeing with him. He is stating that is ABSOLUTELY about the number of people. He's saying it's not about the number of people you are currently playing with, but the number of people you are at any time able to play with. In WoW you have the potential to group up with what? 1000 different players at any given time? Let that sink in.
To the people calling people who think the MMO is changing the "Minority voices".. You know why WoW hasn't done classic WoW server yet? Because the market of gamers who want that compared to the experience they currently offer is too small! The people who cry about the bubble bursting and they want old school mmos back is very small compared to the entire picture. Stop acting like the only people who enjoy MMOs are people who played classic MMO games. You don't have to know what G4TV was in order to have a deep appreciation for MMOs in this era of Streamlined MMOs.. stop the bullshit!
When bands started playing a heavier, darker version of rock and roll, people called it heavy metal, because it was significantly different than the music before it. If people just lumped all bands with guitars and drums into the "rock and roll" category, then we'd be putting the Rolling Stones and Slayer together, when in reality they're very different styles.
Slightly changed the title since people may miss the point of the topic.
As for the topic itself
The other thing that MMOs do that they didn't before is small capped instances instead of an open world.
Star Citizen, each "instance" has very few players in each one. That is by far not a massive multiplayer game...if someone is going by the old definition of MMO. However, people still regard it as an MMO however, because the definition itself has changed.
I've mentioned this in response to you in another thread.. But from what I understand, 16 player caps per area instance are not the goal for SC... It's just an unfinished MMO. @MaxBacon or @Erillion can correct me if I'm wrong.
As for the topic. What is massively multiplayer though?
in 1999, 100+ people was really massive. That was quite a feat. You never saw that in games except MMOs.
Today, you can get 100+ player FPS in a typical fps game.
There is nothing special about "MM"O anymore. A lot of MMOs (like Istaria) don't even see anything past 50 active players except maybe once in a while if an event happens. In many games the multiplayer servers are so large (Ark/Conan Exiles for examples) its not surprising to see 100+ player servers.
Does that make them MMOs then, if MMOs of 100+ player servers still makes them an MMO? Even though many games today see far more than that? Or to the topic title, does that mean the definition of MMO and especially the "MM" part has changed over the years?
Post edited by TheScavenger on
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
I like how people are trying to derail the thread because the topic makes them scared that MMORPGs are changing and have changed. The posters here are using a strategy of derailment to get the topic closed. They are afraid that the classic MMOs are gone, and will go back to complaining about new MMOs and how good the old days were (and will have no issue making 100 threads about it and thousands of posts about wanting old MMOs back and how new MMOs suck and how old WoW was better)
Another strawman. No one is talking about classic MMO's being gone, or about the "good old days". We're talking about using the proper categorization for things. Just going to copy and paste the same thing I said to your buddy when he used the same strawman.
This is what's known as a Straw man. You're countering an argument that was never made in the first place. People here aren't saying anything bad about new games like Destiny 2. And they're not saying anything about people wanting a classic mmo experience. We're simply saying that we know how to properly classify things. Yes, it's a fact that classic style MMORPG's have waned in popularity and co-op multiplayer style games have vastly increased in popularity. That doesn't somehow magically make those newer, more popular games MMO's.
Slightly changed the title since people may miss the point of the topic.
As for the topic itself
The other thing that MMOs do that they didn't before is small capped instances instead of an open world.
Star Citizen, each "instance" has very few players in each one. That is by far not a massive multiplayer game...if someone is going by the old definition of MMO. However, people still regard it as an MMO however, because the definition itself has changed.
I've mentioned this in response to you in another thread.. But from what I understand, 16 player caps per area instance are not the goal for SC... It's just an unfinished MMO. @MaxBacon or @Erillion can correct me if I'm wrong.
Not wrong. Some details:
First of all, Star Citizen by its own definition in the FAQ does not call itself an MMO, but an instanced multiplayer game.
At present the number of players per instance is 24. An instance could be the interior of one space ship. Another the space outside that space ship. Or one level of a space station. Players can freely move from one instance to the other (no loading screens) ... so Instance 1) from cockpit to loading bay, open loading bay door, float out Instance 2) EVA from ship to station, enter station (usually you get shot by a hidden sniper during the approach ;-) ) Instance 3) FPS PvP inside the station.
The number of players is planned to be higher. We have heard various numbers. Many of the community expect 64 after optimizing, like in other games. The developers want to try a new technique based on cloud technology that would allow hundreds in an instance.
Currently there are no plans to have instances with time dilation and thousands of players like in EVE Online. Even in EVE this is not standard and requires previous notice to CCP and special reenforced battle servers.
In Star Citizen all will be playing in the same sandbox universe (a single shard), but not everyone can be in the same place like everone else at the same time in the same instance. When instances fill up, the game opens new instances.
One idea was that the game will group players with similars settings together in the same instances. Hardcore PvP griefers (PvP slider at max, criminal status for player kills) will preferentially meet other players of the same type in instances.
Comments
When bands started playing a heavier, darker version of rock and roll, people called it heavy metal, because it was significantly different than the music before it. If people just lumped all bands with guitars and drums into the "rock and roll" category, then we'd be putting the Rolling Stones and Slayer together, when in reality they're very different styles.
And it is not about you. Sure, you don't like the topic. So? I don't like MOBAs too. You don't see me writing to the CEO of riot and asking them to shut LoL down.
It is a free world. Don't like the topic, read and post on another. It is not like you are forced to read this topic.
~~ postlarval ~~
I think it is kind of funny how you are gushing all over WoW a few months ago, and now MMOs are a dying genre.
edit: When are the moderators going to do something about these posters? They using nothing but ad hominem attacks and making multiple posts on the same subject.
Nothing about that has changed, what has changed are idiots calling games which at any one time only allow four people to play together an mmo, NO!.. Just NO!.
this topic is beyond stupid.
Indeed, the thread is beyond stupid...elementary school kids understand principles of etymology.
For instance, you are trying to say WoW is not an MMORPG because it has some small instances.
Those small instances do not change the fact that each WoW server can hold thousands of players at the same time, and those thousands of players can all run around the game world, interact with each other, and the whole game world, as they see fit.
Personally, I say if a game cannot support at least hundreds of players per server, does not have a persistent world that those players can run around while interacting with other and the game world itself, then it is not an MMO.
A creative person is motivated by the desire to achieve, not the desire to beat others.
I still think this site should change it's named to sharedworlds.com.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
in 1999, 100+ people was really massive. That was quite a feat. You never saw that in games except MMOs.
Today, you can get 100+ player FPS in a typical fps game.
There is nothing special about "MM"O anymore. A lot of MMOs (like Istaria) don't even see anything past 50 active players except maybe once in a while if an event happens. In many games the multiplayer servers are so large (Ark/Conan Exiles for examples) its not surprising to see 100+ player servers.
Does that make them MMOs then, if MMOs of 100+ player servers still makes them an MMO? Even though many games today see far more than that? Or to the topic title, does that mean the definition of MMO and especially the "MM" part has changed over the years?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
But it's definitely, definitely an MMO.
~~ postlarval ~~
This is what's known as a Straw man. You're countering an argument that was never made in the first place. People here aren't saying anything bad about new games like Destiny 2. And they're not saying anything about people wanting a classic mmo experience. We're simply saying that we know how to properly classify things. Yes, it's a fact that classic style MMORPG's have waned in popularity and co-op multiplayer style games have vastly increased in popularity. That doesn't somehow magically make those newer, more popular games MMO's.
When bands started playing a heavier, darker version of rock and roll, people called it heavy metal, because it was significantly different than the music before it. If people just lumped all bands with guitars and drums into the "rock and roll" category, then we'd be putting the Rolling Stones and Slayer together, when in reality they're very different styles.
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/467918/the-mmo-definition-has-evolved-and-the-old-definition-no-longer-applies/p3#YhClAjl8VcFu81ue.99
~~ postlarval ~~
Not wrong. Some details:
First of all, Star Citizen by its own definition in the FAQ does not call itself an MMO, but an instanced multiplayer game.
At present the number of players per instance is 24. An instance could be the interior of one space ship. Another the space outside that space ship. Or one level of a space station. Players can freely move from one instance to the other (no loading screens) ... so Instance 1) from cockpit to loading bay, open loading bay door, float out Instance 2) EVA from ship to station, enter station (usually you get shot by a hidden sniper during the approach ;-) ) Instance 3) FPS PvP inside the station.
The number of players is planned to be higher. We have heard various numbers. Many of the community expect 64 after optimizing, like in other games. The developers want to try a new technique based on cloud technology that would allow hundreds in an instance.
Currently there are no plans to have instances with time dilation and thousands of players like in EVE Online. Even in EVE this is not standard and requires previous notice to CCP and special reenforced battle servers.
In Star Citizen all will be playing in the same sandbox universe (a single shard), but not everyone can be in the same place like everone else at the same time in the same instance. When instances fill up, the game opens new instances.
One idea was that the game will group players with similars settings together in the same instances. Hardcore PvP griefers (PvP slider at max, criminal status for player kills) will preferentially meet other players of the same type in instances.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/12770-Chris-Roberts-On-Multiplayer-Single-Player-And-Instancing
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Instancing
http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
Have fun
We should just invent a new Term for what we think is an mmo.
Let's call it RealMMO or TrueMMO
By definition a TMMO needs to have all these things. If it doesnt its just a mmo
Fuck your mmos