Nope I didn't. Massively multiplayer just means there is a lot of people.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
Multiplayer is to play, not to be there. Sorry, but you are completely wrong solo player. MMO could have the opportunity to play solo. But above all it should be a multiplayer game. If it is not, it is not a MMO. I fact LoL is more MMO than WoW. You can chat and talk, make parties and etc. with much more people.
A multiplayer game has the opportunity to play with more than one person.
Multiplayer itself just means more than one person.
Massively multiplayer just means a lots of people.
To play with a lot of people. I doubt you have ever played with anyone.
MMO: A game that is played online, with a large number of other people that inhabit the same space. (ie. Interactions and creation of circumstances can be brought about by other players.)
So LoL is a MMO. Also the avatar thing is not RPG.
Ikcin, stop being willfully ignorant (aka stupid). If all you're going to do is try and twist Venge's words and take pot shots, exit stage left. Nobody is buying it.
I have already stopped wasting my time on this poster and skip his posts aka not read them (ignore list occupant). He is only interested in his ideas and I cannot abide by people like that and not to mention a waste of my time. If you want to have a discussion on these boards at least have the decency to read and understand and respond saliently not bleat your view in every response like an automaton. You are more patient than me I notice in the subsequent posts and your explanation has gotten through ...bravo.
Nope I didn't. Massively multiplayer just means there is a lot of people.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
Multiplayer is to play, not to be there. Sorry, but you are completely wrong solo player. MMO could have the opportunity to play solo. But above all it should be a multiplayer game. If it is not, it is not a MMO. I fact LoL is more MMO than WoW. You can chat and talk, make parties and etc. with much more people.
A multiplayer game has the opportunity to play with more than one person.
Multiplayer itself just means more than one person.
Massively multiplayer just means a lots of people.
To play with a lot of people. I doubt you have ever played with anyone.
MMO: A game that is played online, with a large number of other people that inhabit the same space. (ie. Interactions and creation of circumstances can be brought about by other players.)
So LoL is a MMO. Also the avatar thing is not RPG.
In fact we do not need a new definition. It is pretty clear - MMORPG - massively (thousands of players or more) multiplayer (play together) online a role (take predefined position in a certain situation) playing game.
So LoL and WoW both are not MMORPGs.
EVE is a MMORPG as actually all the players on the server play together - that does not mean they cannot do things solo, it means there are not limits and obstacles to prevent the multiplayer gameplay.
My definition would include LoL and WoW. How is that not clear? It's online, a large number of people can inhabit the same space, and those people can interact and/or create circumstances. There is no room for debate. WoW fits like a glove under that definition.
I would like it if old dead MMOs got reworked to have an offline single player experience. Yeah it'll never be the same as playing it properly with other people, but it feels like a shame and a waste to let all the content go into the ether, and it could still be a fun nostalgia trip to walk down the old zones for a few hours.
You do not need offline solo mode, but just a server emulator. Still this is kind of silly - the solo RPG part of the MMOs is bad in comparison to the singleplayer RPGs in general.
I agree with you on the emu in theory but most of the time they are pure garbage with tuned rules and in worst case scenarios the hosts favoring high end players by giving them free handouts. Hell, I've even seen some emus where you can just buy the high level loot.
I'd rather deal with none of that and just have a legit offline single player RPG reworked from the existing content of an MMO than have it vanish into the ether. Best case scenario is that the legit servers never close down but that's not a realistic option.
MMOs should force partying and be online 100% of the time, it isn't an mmo when you can take it offline.
You should never have to force someone to do something. NEVER. N-E-V-E-R All you have to do is make it fun, easy and rewarding. That does seem near impossible in the industry right now though.
....not really an MMO if you play it alone, is it?
The problem becomes that if your game isn't geared towards solo players anyway, it will be near impossible. Imagine attempting a raid offline by yourself.
The fact that we are even asking such a question makes me weep.
MMOs were meant to create community in gaming. Now, people are pissed off if a group isn't found FOR them for everything and they aren't warped to where they are going immediately.
I miss the days of Everquest at launch. It's why I'm super hyped for Pantheon.
Sadly people will pick solo play almost all the time in online games now because the devs are too afraid to make hard open world content. Gotta push them out of the tree so they can fly again.
Read this thread off and on and not going to search to see if this has been mentioned or not,
Do I think MMOs need an offline mode? Absolutely not! HOWEVER I do think the tutorial at the start of the game could be made offline that way when you log in your actually playing not doing boring tasks to learn that you need to right click an npc to complete a fetch quest.
Since MMO does not need to be "massively multiplayer" anyway (based on the classification on the game list on this website, multiple posters, and other websites), we may as well take the "online" part out too.
There is a certainly poetic quality to a label that ALL three letters mean nothing, as opposed to just two.
I say "go for it". At the last, it will liven up the forum here for a few years (an estimation based on how long the "definition war" has gone on in the past, even without my participation).
Since MMO does not need to be "massively multiplayer" anyway (based on the classification on the game list on this website, multiple posters, and other websites), we may as well take the "online" part out too.
There is a certainly poetic quality to a label that ALL three letters mean nothing, as opposed to just two.
I say "go for it". At the last, it will liven up the forum here for a few years (an estimation based on how long the "definition war" has gone on in the past, even without my participation).
Actually, I pointed out the inconsistency in their "All MMO Games List" header and they changed it to avoid confusion. Go check now.
You guys must have missed like the 20 threads arguing about MMORPGs where people like nauriseldon have been pointing out that same header I just showed an image of and using it to say everything on your list is an MMO.
I totally agree - we need to update that header. Remember this site is old (hoping for a total facelift within the next 12 months) and that header has probably had the same name for 6+ years.
Again, we are not trying to be deceptive here. As Suzie outlined - we clearly state the genre of the game in each list entry.
Since MMO does not need to be "massively multiplayer" anyway (based on the classification on the game list on this website, multiple posters, and other websites), we may as well take the "online" part out too.
There is a certainly poetic quality to a label that ALL three letters mean nothing, as opposed to just two.
I say "go for it". At the last, it will liven up the forum here for a few years (an estimation based on how long the "definition war" has gone on in the past, even without my participation).
Actually, I pointed out the inconsistency in their "All MMO Games List" header and they changed it to avoid confusion. Go check now.
Just look at the "genre" column. If games like World of Tank is still classified as a action MMO .. my point stands. (MMO does not need to be "massively multiplyaer' based on the classification on the game list on this website).
Good luck to you asking them to change all the labels in the "genre" column!
It shows they're not infallible. You supreme authority changed things to be more accurate based on commentary from the community. They have Destiny listed as an MMOFPS as well. 90% of the playerbase say that isn't the case. I don't need to force them to make all the changes because they don't define the terms, the community does.
I would encourage them to fix the genres they list next to games like Destiny and World of Tanks, but if they don't then their classification is wrong. Not the definition the thousands of MMO fans are willing to accept.
It shows they're not infallible. You supreme authority changed things to be more accurate based on commentary from the community. They have Destiny listed as an MMOFPS as well. 90% of the playerbase say that isn't the case. I don't need to force them to make all the changes because they don't define the terms, the community does.
I would encourage them to fix the genres they list next to games like Destiny and World of Tanks, but if they don't then their classification is wrong. Not the definition the thousands of MMO fans are willing to accept.
Lol .. what community? You mean the forum here which debates endlessly (even when i am gone) about the definition of MMOs?
Just admit you can't even get the web master to change their classification. And, in fact, what gives YOU the authority over them to define what Destiny or WoT should be? The bickering "community" ?
There is near total consensus outside a few squeaky wheels. Even if you go outside these forums but you know this. Complete consensus has never been a requirement. Some people, like you, are just flat wrong.
I mean why not? Most of you are shelling out $$ for borderline single player MMO's anyways. This way you can get the anti social solo experience you want, while still being able to go online and show everyone your "hard work."
Sadly people will pick solo play almost all the time in online games now because the devs are too afraid to make hard open world content. Gotta push them out of the tree so they can fly again.
Unfortunately marketing reports show them people prefer to play this way. The reasons why range all over and some of the ones mentioned frequently are being forced to play with bad players and not wanting other players to ruin the game experience in some capacity.
Suddenly all the soloers and singleplayer fans that oldschool MMOers hate wouldn't be seen in their game. The soloers will have a Warcraft open world huge massive singleplayer RPG...
and there is no warcraft huge massive open world singleplayer rpg...so no one has a choice but to play WoW if they want a warcraft RPG
But, this would then allow blizzard to really focus grouping in WoW for the online mode and make a far more social atmosphere. This is what many oldschool fans keep wanting for MMOs, and having an offline mode would fix that.
Blizzard could be first to do this. Then many other companies can join in. Heck, I know many people who'd play EVE Online as a singleplayer game.
And everyone wins. Singleplayer/soloers get the game(s) they always wanted and no longer need to "ruin" MMOs for the classic oldschool MMO fans.
And the best part is the companies can still make money from offline mode in this case, and not really need to maintain it much except maybe add in recent updates so there is always new content.
Plus this would fix the MMO genre by removing soloers/singleplayers from the genre that oldschool fans hate. But also make soloers/singleplayers very happy at the same time.
It's the same old story, isn't it? Get rid of people who aren't like you and fix your world to be only good for you.
Soloers are anathema to oldschoolers because they don't group. And if we could only get rid of them then everyone would be happily grouping and socializing all the time and life would be beautiful.
The idea that MMOs existed once upon a time without solo players is a fantasy. The idea that soloers are an invading species somehow related to that other despised group, casuals, is rot at the center of this fixation.
As long as there have been MMOs there have been solo players. Why is this? Because the reasons people play solo haven't changed. And the reasons solo players play MMOs haven't changed either.
If such an idea were ever to be implemented, I'd be surprised if many or any so-called solo players went for it. There are so many assumptions housed in the concept of the soloer, anti-social being only one of them. News to you, apparently, that there are just as many anti-social groupers as there are solo players. Just look at the toxic communities of forced co-op games. Now that's anti-social behavior. While there may be some solo players who would willing go for cordoned off game world, it would probably not last for long. Offline games are empty and lonely. Yeah, you'll see the guy drinking alone at the bar. But I point out to you he's surrounded by other people in a public place. He's not home alone drinking. That right there should be a clue to you about how important the vibrancy, changeability, living world around solo players is to them.
Solo players engaged in all the same things groupers do, they play the economic game of the auction house, they vie for crafting materials, they enjoying showing off their mounts and costumes at gathering places, engage in chat, join guilds and so on.
A big misconception or common argument against solo players in an mmo is "This is an mmo, you are supposed to play with others." Not really. Just like multiplayer games such as Street Fighter or Marvel Ultimate Alliance, the multiplayer part is solely optional. It is there, but you can choose to ignore it.
Crafting is an example of this. If the sole purpose was multiplayer, an mmo would not have solo elements included. Some mmo allow you to beat the story solo, go figure.
Now, if you start the game & is automatically qued in a group, and que out the game when there is no group, that is different. You are required to play with a group. MOBA are like that, but you can use bots. I have yet to see a full on mmo where the sole purpose was group play.
There is near total consensus outside a few squeaky wheels. Even if you go outside these forums but you know this. Complete consensus has never been a requirement. Some people, like you, are just flat wrong.
lol .. as if you are the expert of this. You don't even have consensus here.
Sadly people will pick solo play almost all the time in online games now because the devs are too afraid to make hard open world content. Gotta push them out of the tree so they can fly again.
Unfortunately marketing reports show them people prefer to play this way. The reasons why range all over and some of the ones mentioned frequently are being forced to play with bad players and not wanting other players to ruin the game experience in some capacity.
What is so unfortunate? People prefer to play a certain way and their needs are met by developers. Sounds like a GOOD thing to me.
Comments
Massively Multiplayer Online.
Which part of Ark or Conan Exiles does Massively apply to with regards the multiplayer aspects?
Just look at an Ark or a Conan Exiles server, look how many players they can handle, they are not massively multiplayer at all, just multiplayer.
Also, in MMO, the O means Online, not Offline.
If it was offline, it would just be a game, not an MMO.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
All you have to do is make it fun, easy and rewarding. That does seem near impossible in the industry right now though.
The problem becomes that if your game isn't geared towards solo players anyway, it will be near impossible. Imagine attempting a raid offline by yourself.
MMOs were meant to create community in gaming. Now, people are pissed off if a group isn't found FOR them for everything and they aren't warped to where they are going immediately.
I miss the days of Everquest at launch. It's why I'm super hyped for Pantheon.
Do I think MMOs need an offline mode? Absolutely not! HOWEVER I do think the tutorial at the start of the game could be made offline that way when you log in your actually playing not doing boring tasks to learn that you need to right click an npc to complete a fetch quest.
There is a certainly poetic quality to a label that ALL three letters mean nothing, as opposed to just two.
I say "go for it". At the last, it will liven up the forum here for a few years (an estimation based on how long the "definition war" has gone on in the past, even without my participation).
Just look at the "genre" column. If games like World of Tank is still classified as a action MMO .. my point stands. (MMO does not need to be "massively multiplyaer' based on the classification on the game list on this website).
Good luck to you asking them to change all the labels in the "genre" column!
I would encourage them to fix the genres they list next to games like Destiny and World of Tanks, but if they don't then their classification is wrong. Not the definition the thousands of MMO fans are willing to accept.
Lol .. what community? You mean the forum here which debates endlessly (even when i am gone) about the definition of MMOs?
Just admit you can't even get the web master to change their classification. And, in fact, what gives YOU the authority over them to define what Destiny or WoT should be? The bickering "community" ?
MurderHerd
What is so unfortunate? People prefer to play a certain way and their needs are met by developers. Sounds like a GOOD thing to me.