How does anyone care about the definition of an MMO? Research the game, look at consumer reviews, look at gameplay on youtube, make your own conclusion and then move on.
hmm .. you really think the definition warriors on this forum is capable of moving on? You are still on this topic, are you not?
Personally I'd really like to be able to filter a list of all current MMOs to exclude or require them to have various traits. So that's what I imagine terms would be useful for, aside from discussion about designing a game.
Last time I worked on a game design project, there was quite a bit of confusion and arguing over what constituted an "open-world" singleplayer RPG. One person had apparently signed up just because of that word in the description, but then was disappointed to find out we were not making a procedural RPsim, but instead a Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restrictions on where the layer traveled or which quests they chose to pursue.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Personally I'd really like to be able to filter a list of all current MMOs to exclude or require them to have various traits. So that's what I imagine terms would be useful for, aside from discussion about designing a game.
Last time I worked on a game design project, there was quite a bit of confusion and arguing over what constituted an "open-world" singleplayer RPG. One person had apparently signed up just because of that word in the description, but then was disappointed to find out we were not making a procedural RPsim, but instead a Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restrictions on where the layer traveled or which quests they chose to pursue.
and what that will do is to make the flames even worse .. because now people here will debate what are the definition of the traits.
I suppose talking about games is as much fun as playing them.
immodium said: Some people insist that an MMO must be persistent. I don't.
There's also the persistent misconception that MMOs should be community-based, even though most of the predecessors of the genre weren't.
For instance, in most MUDs you simply did your own thing solo and absolutely everything was soloable (with enough grind and skill). There were other players, sure, but they were usually competition (for loot, mobs, etc) or merchants instead of allies. MUDs usually had no party support at all.
So I'm quite tired of gamers who insist that every MMO should have non-soloable content and raids. Player interaction is integral to the genre, but player cooperation isn't.
Personally I'd really like to be able to filter a list of all current MMOs to exclude or require them to have various traits. So that's what I imagine terms would be useful for, aside from discussion about designing a game.
Last time I worked on a game design project, there was quite a bit of confusion and arguing over what constituted an "open-world" singleplayer RPG. One person had apparently signed up just because of that word in the description, but then was disappointed to find out we were not making a procedural RPsim, but instead a Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restrictions on where the layer traveled or which quests they chose to pursue.
So you would have a genre called "Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restriction on where the player traveled or which quests they chose to pursue"?
I'm pretty sure open-world single player RPG fits that bill, less wordy, and doesn't call your own game a Skyrim wannabe.
You guys are overthinking this. Pizza can be different, but we still call it pizza. Just relax your inner nerd.
Personally I'd really like to be able to filter a list of all current MMOs to exclude or require them to have various traits. So that's what I imagine terms would be useful for, aside from discussion about designing a game.
Last time I worked on a game design project, there was quite a bit of confusion and arguing over what constituted an "open-world" singleplayer RPG. One person had apparently signed up just because of that word in the description, but then was disappointed to find out we were not making a procedural RPsim, but instead a Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restrictions on where the layer traveled or which quests they chose to pursue.
So you would have a genre called "Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restriction on where the player traveled or which quests they chose to pursue"?
I'm pretty sure open-world single player RPG fits that bill, less wordy, and doesn't call your own game a Skyrim wannabe.
You guys are overthinking this. Pizza can be different, but we still call it pizza. Just relax your inner nerd.
What I was trying to say was, we did describe the game as a 2D singleplayer open-world rpg in our recruitment post, but the recruit who liked this description disagreed with it when he found out that we wanted to include a lot of pre-created content. His definition of open-world didn't allow pre-created NPC towns populated with NPCs who offered pre-created quests, while our definition did allow that. So the point was that both of us wasted our time because there isn't a clear definition of "open-world" in the gaming community.
As far as me personally, I enjoy discussions about definitions because I learn things from them, like insights into how others view games. Sure all pizza can be called pizza, but I like to try new types of pizza, and I also would like to avoid types I've tried and disliked. I don't want to order random pizza and have the delivery person bring me a pizza I don't want to eat.
I want to help design and develop a PvE-focused, solo-friendly, sandpark MMO which combines crafting, monster hunting, and story. So PM me if you are starting one.
Comments
Last time I worked on a game design project, there was quite a bit of confusion and arguing over what constituted an "open-world" singleplayer RPG. One person had apparently signed up just because of that word in the description, but then was disappointed to find out we were not making a procedural RPsim, but instead a Skyrim type game with a lot of pre-created content but no restrictions on where the layer traveled or which quests they chose to pursue.
and what that will do is to make the flames even worse .. because now people here will debate what are the definition of the traits.
I suppose talking about games is as much fun as playing them.
For instance, in most MUDs you simply did your own thing solo and absolutely everything was soloable (with enough grind and skill). There were other players, sure, but they were usually competition (for loot, mobs, etc) or merchants instead of allies. MUDs usually had no party support at all.
So I'm quite tired of gamers who insist that every MMO should have non-soloable content and raids. Player interaction is integral to the genre, but player cooperation isn't.
I'm pretty sure open-world single player RPG fits that bill, less wordy, and doesn't call your own game a Skyrim wannabe.
You guys are overthinking this. Pizza can be different, but we still call it pizza. Just relax your inner nerd.
As far as me personally, I enjoy discussions about definitions because I learn things from them, like insights into how others view games. Sure all pizza can be called pizza, but I like to try new types of pizza, and I also would like to avoid types I've tried and disliked. I don't want to order random pizza and have the delivery person bring me a pizza I don't want to eat.
People are overthinking everything. Welcome to the internet. To be fair, this place is way LESS overthinking, than say .. a star trek forum.