As soon as they make Lawnmowers that have IP addresses and a login screen, this site will call them MMOs.
So my car can run internet from the screen. It also downloads updates like a telephone. Does that mean my car is an MMO? . . . if so, I'd like my car make and model to be put in the MMO section.
Seriously, in all reality, use your brain. Not a big deal about what is or what isn't an MMO. Also, if you've never heard of an MMO it probably sucks balls because the company doesn't have any money to advertise.
disclaimer: Advertising on MMORPG doesn't count. When an MMO advertises on ESPN, then you know they have money. Currently, i'm looking at this "dragon awaken" bullshit. This game is clearly some stupid east company that is more generic than a toilet.
Cryomatrix
You've taken sarcastic statement of hyperbole that was used to exaggerate a point about how this site has deliberately expanded the term MMO far beyond its definition, and responded to it seriously.
The point here is that this argument has come around so many times and never produced anything but confusion. I've stopped responding seriously trying to use the rules of language to help clarify.
People don't want it. People would rather define their own titles how they want than apply those rules.
As soon as they make Lawnmowers that have IP addresses and a login screen, this site will call them MMOs.
So my car can run internet from the screen. It also downloads updates like a telephone. Does that mean my car is an MMO? . . . if so, I'd like my car make and model to be put in the MMO section.
Seriously, in all reality, use your brain. Not a big deal about what is or what isn't an MMO. Also, if you've never heard of an MMO it probably sucks balls because the company doesn't have any money to advertise.
disclaimer: Advertising on MMORPG doesn't count. When an MMO advertises on ESPN, then you know they have money. Currently, i'm looking at this "dragon awaken" bullshit. This game is clearly some stupid east company that is more generic than a toilet.
Cryomatrix
You've taken sarcastic statement of hyperbole that was used to exaggerate a point about how this site has deliberately expanded the term MMO far beyond its definition, and responded to it seriously.
The point here is that this argument has come around so many times and never produced anything but confusion. I've stopped responding seriously trying to use the rules of language to help clarify.
People don't want it. People would rather define their own titles how they want than apply those rules.
So, I make jokes.
Words, and associated acronyms, are defined through general acceptance of meaning, and in living languages this general acceptance is subject to change over time.
The rules of language wouldn't have supported immutability, as language itself provides many examples of historically expanding definition.
Shifts in the use of MMO as a descriptor range far beyond this site, to the point where it is near ubiquitous, so is more an example of the norm than some sort of outlier.
So, the argument will continue to go around unless and until a new consensus of meaning emerges regardless of the bother it may inflict on those the process unsettles.
Sure, just as soon as you can get everyone to agree on what constitutes an MMO.
You are 100% right, but the site could set a simple guideline to keep the whining to a minimum. Like: 1 player in the zone = single player, 2-32 = multiplayer, 33+ = MMO. That is just an example and can certainly be discussed but if the site have their own rules it would be easy to understand for everyone.
You do more or less need exact rules so not different editors have different opinions and an exact number of players in the same zone is simple. You would still get a few games mislabeled (in my example the FPS games that supports numbers like 64 players) but just label those games MMOFPS.
And yes, 65 players would also be a good limit for MMOs, it is just an example on how to make a system for it to work. There are certainly some people that think several hundred players are the limit while others think 4 is enough but I think for something to be called massive it needs to have more players then the average FPS game and those often have 32 players so it is kinda the minimum in my book.
32 players is just a regular multiplayer online game, you even get them with up to 100 players - see Fortnite. Instead i would say any game with 64 players or less is without question, not an MMO. When it comes to actual MMO's rather than Multiplayer games, if anything its usually at least 150 players for instanced MMO's like SW:TOR etc. I use that as an example as i am not sure what the limit is on ESO before it spawns another instance but i suspect it is at least 150. Its very hard to make the argument for any online game that doesn't support those kinds of numbers to be classed as an MMO tbh as even 64 players is still really a generic figure associated with multiplayer online games.
Single player = can only play by yourself. Multiplayer = player with other people. MMO = log into shared gaming world. MMOlite = single player/multiplayer game with online hub.
As soon as they make Lawnmowers that have IP addresses and a login screen, this site will call them MMOs.
Sadly, those already exist (even more sadly are those robot lawnmovers too pricey for my taste so I have to use the old fashioned ones). But I don't think moving the lawn is something you could call a game even though I think there was a C-64 game based on that back in the 80s.
But it seems like any game with 2+ players and a online mode is called MMOs today. Obviously do marketeers consider 2 persons a "massive" amount of people.
That 3 people have responded seriously, to what should be obvious sarcasm, (Meaning the sarcasm isn't as "obvious" as I thought) tells me there is confusion over how this site classifies games. Or, at the very least, it's not clear.
Sure, just as soon as you can get everyone to agree on what constitutes an MMO.
Anything with I'd say a minimum of 500 concurrent players on a server. That is being generous, imo it should be higher, and should add the non-instanced qualifier. The server has to be more than a lobby for people to join a bunch of disconnected instanced zones. Imo this disqualifies games like Skyforge, Destiny etc.
What if it is just one player 500-boxing?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
As soon as they make Lawnmowers that have IP addresses and a login screen, this site will call them MMOs.
So my car can run internet from the screen. It also downloads updates like a telephone. Does that mean my car is an MMO? . . . if so, I'd like my car make and model to be put in the MMO section.
Seriously, in all reality, use your brain. Not a big deal about what is or what isn't an MMO. Also, if you've never heard of an MMO it probably sucks balls because the company doesn't have any money to advertise.
disclaimer: Advertising on MMORPG doesn't count. When an MMO advertises on ESPN, then you know they have money. Currently, i'm looking at this "dragon awaken" bullshit. This game is clearly some stupid east company that is more generic than a toilet.
Cryomatrix
You've taken sarcastic statement of hyperbole that was used to exaggerate a point about how this site has deliberately expanded the term MMO far beyond its definition, and responded to it seriously.
The point here is that this argument has come around so many times and never produced anything but confusion. I've stopped responding seriously trying to use the rules of language to help clarify.
People don't want it. People would rather define their own titles how they want than apply those rules.
So, I make jokes.
Actually, no, I started the second paragraph with 'seriously' indicating that the above paragraph was a joke
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Single player = can only play by yourself. Multiplayer = player with other people. MMO = log into shared gaming world. MMOlite = single player/multiplayer game with online hub.
wanted some days ago to explain it like u do but my english isnt that good for it, so yes thats is what i meant like you said.
fan of SWG, XCOM, Defiance, Global Agenda, Need For Speed, all Star Wars single player games. And waiting the darn STAR CITIZEN
and no matter what people say, that will help people to find what they looking for. Many of us we dont have the privilege to seek all day on internet or
chat with ppl that play many games and learn everything in no time.
fan of SWG, XCOM, Defiance, Global Agenda, Need For Speed, all Star Wars single player games. And waiting the darn STAR CITIZEN
One of the main problems is, we lost the second part to clear the definition. That alone (besides the threshold of a certain concurrent possible users) makes the term broad and as good to grasp as morning mist. It was all clearer when we had MMORPGs, MMOFPS', MMORTS' and so on. You could clearly see what subcategory it had and what amount of users, setting and so on to expect. I clearly expect many concurrent users (hundrets to thousands) and a world in a MMORPG, but I wouldn't expect this from an MMOFPS or MMORTS. But to ride the hype back then every game was just labled "MMO" and when someone complained the answer was "We said MMO, not MMORPG!". IIRC we had different sites for different subcategories. Now we have a thin term for almost everything that can be played over the internet. Seems like the general trend right now to broaden terms as wide as possible and be as unspecific as possible.
Single player = can only play by yourself. Multiplayer = player with other people. MMO = log into shared gaming world. MMOlite = single player/multiplayer game with online hub.
This is not right. It is a comfortable definition for solo games with instances labeled as MMORPGs. But that definition is false. Multiplayer in MMO is still multiplayer, but not sharing. If it was sharing the label would be Massive sharing online. The reality is that many games are MSO, but Massive singleplayer online. To call a game MMO there should not be restrictions for the multiplayer gameplay, and also there have to be competition and need of cooperation with the adequate gameplay mechanisms.
ok so the STFMK isnt like KTFDMO but more of KTNRMO, ok?
simplicity is the key, we dont need so much deep into it. 3 simple categories with what is 1st in each game = single player, multiplayer, mmo. end of story !!
fan of SWG, XCOM, Defiance, Global Agenda, Need For Speed, all Star Wars single player games. And waiting the darn STAR CITIZEN
Single player = can only play by yourself. Multiplayer = player with other people. MMO = log into shared gaming world. MMOlite = single player/multiplayer game with online hub.
This is not right. It is a comfortable definition for solo games with instances labeled as MMORPGs. But that definition is false. Multiplayer in MMO is still multiplayer, but not sharing. If it was sharing the label would be Massive sharing online. The reality is that many games are MSO, but Massive singleplayer online. To call a game MMO there should not be restrictions for the multiplayer gameplay, and also there have to be competition and need of cooperation with the adequate gameplay mechanisms.
You are adding ambiguity and your opinion. What are you are saying is essentially the house isn't house because it should have a basement. House is a residential structure. Trying to decide what a house by what's in it makes things vague.
Likewise saying what is or isn't a MMORPG by your personal opinion of what you like is silly. The comfortable definition is the barebones of a MMORPG. A multiplayer game with a persistent online world was the standard.
In Development: - Star Citizen - Dual Universe - Repopulation
Released: - Star Wars The Old Republic - Eve - Wildstar - Star Trek Online - Planet Side 1 & 2 - Anarchy Online - Defiance
Deceased: - Star Wars Galaxies
(in dev) Defiance 2050, Cyberpunk, project genom, epocylipse, (closed) global agenda. (cancel) earthrise....(also can add and the SkyForge as sci-fi since they got range weps)
Still your point is what you know and what i know, im sure there are other games, so my point is how to know them ? posting asking ppl to say what they found in a portal like this from time to time? or if they know what game is what type e.t.c.? do you found that correct?
I think you have a good point. To avoid controversial labels you could filter by undisputable facts, number players per team, number of players in the "world", open world vs instanced, pvp and pve.
To be honest though, I've come to realize that if I haven't heard of it there is usually a good reason Probably better to go to one of the games you know and find a fun group of people to play with. That can make all the difference.
I do agree we are severely lacking in the SF MMO category. The reason why my project is for an SF game.
I think you have a good point. To avoid controversial labels you could filter by undisputable facts, number players per team, number of players in the "world", open world vs instanced, pvp and pve.
To be honest though, I've come to realize that if I haven't heard of it there is usually a good reason Probably better to go to one of the games you know and find a fun group of people to play with. That can make all the difference.
I do agree we are severely lacking in the SF MMO category. The reason why my project is for an SF game.
Im a player and this site is supposed an MMO portal, filters? ok lets say i add 4 team groups what u think this will show me? only mmo? instances have and multiplayer and mmo games.
as for the games .....
play them all but defiance 2050 cyberpunk and genom
defiance 2050 (which i learn that is exactly the same as defiance (played) with harder lvl up and better graphs.
cyberpunk see gameplay videos, not so to like it. not so sci-fi they say too.
genom left but lot of negative critics from already players.
so my option is only 1.... while are out there more mmo that in that huge chaotic cant find or recognize.
fan of SWG, XCOM, Defiance, Global Agenda, Need For Speed, all Star Wars single player games. And waiting the darn STAR CITIZEN
Won't help, editors are unable or unwilling to discern the difference.
Several of them such as the site owner only have a weak understanding of what it means. Richard Garriott explained what it meant on his twitter even. He even differentiates how an MMO doesn't need to be persistent, but an MMORPG does.
Take note, he even correctly states that Shroud of the Avatar is not an MMO, but a selective multiplayer game. Yet this site labels it as MMORPG.
Then you had the fake MMO hall of fame, of which this site participated in years ago (2012), and they voted League of Legends as an MMO HahAHhAhAhahAhAH.
I am impressed that they fixed the Guild Wars listing as CORPG as the developers even tried to explain it was. Many of the community members years ago tried to teach them. Yet they kept calling it an MMO! Here is the link where the devs explain why its not an MMO (small player caps).
However, they then go and screw up and call Path of Exile an MMO when it can't even support a large number of players, let alone a massive amount! Here is a page directly from the developers stating they hate being called an MMO because they only allow a couple dozen players max in cities.
Like how do you mess up MMO? Its either massively multiplayer and online or it isn't. If the game isn't capable, its not capable. No amount of mislabeling a game is going to change that.
So tell me, how is a game that is an MMO, not an MMO in your eyes? Is it going to be that illogical argument that an MMO isnt an MMO cause where you played early game felt lonely? That's like saying a car isn't a car when its in park. Well it still offers you the opportunity to drive. Its functionally still the same thing when still.
Comments
The point here is that this argument has come around so many times and never produced anything but confusion. I've stopped responding seriously trying to use the rules of language to help clarify.
People don't want it. People would rather define their own titles how they want than apply those rules.
So, I make jokes.
Instead i would say any game with 64 players or less is without question, not an MMO.
When it comes to actual MMO's rather than Multiplayer games, if anything its usually at least 150 players for instanced MMO's like SW:TOR etc. I use that as an example as i am not sure what the limit is on ESO before it spawns another instance but i suspect it is at least 150. Its very hard to make the argument for any online game that doesn't support those kinds of numbers to be classed as an MMO tbh as even 64 players is still really a generic figure associated with multiplayer online games.
But it seems like any game with 2+ players and a online mode is called MMOs today. Obviously do marketeers consider 2 persons a "massive" amount of people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
But I don't think it was the sarcasm that is the problem, it's the context.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
It was all clearer when we had MMORPGs, MMOFPS', MMORTS' and so on. You could clearly see what subcategory it had and what amount of users, setting and so on to expect. I clearly expect many concurrent users (hundrets to thousands) and a world in a MMORPG, but I wouldn't expect this from an MMOFPS or MMORTS.
But to ride the hype back then every game was just labled "MMO" and when someone complained the answer was "We said MMO, not MMORPG!". IIRC we had different sites for different subcategories. Now we have a thin term for almost everything that can be played over the internet. Seems like the general trend right now to broaden terms as wide as possible and be as unspecific as possible.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Likewise saying what is or isn't a MMORPG by your personal opinion of what you like is silly. The comfortable definition is the barebones of a MMORPG. A multiplayer game with a persistent online world was the standard.
To avoid controversial labels you could filter by undisputable facts, number players per team, number of players in the "world", open world vs instanced, pvp and pve.
To be honest though, I've come to realize that if I haven't heard of it there is usually a good reason
Probably better to go to one of the games you know and find a fun group of people to play with. That can make all the difference.
I do agree we are severely lacking in the SF MMO category. The reason why my project is for an SF game.
https://twitter.com/RichardGarriott/status/848741634565124096
Take note, he even correctly states that Shroud of the Avatar is not an MMO, but a selective multiplayer game. Yet this site labels it as MMORPG.
Then you had the fake MMO hall of fame, of which this site participated in years ago (2012), and they voted League of Legends as an MMO HahAHhAhAhahAhAH.
I am impressed that they fixed the Guild Wars listing as CORPG as the developers even tried to explain it was. Many of the community members years ago tried to teach them. Yet they kept calling it an MMO! Here is the link where the devs explain why its not an MMO (small player caps).
https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars
However, they then go and screw up and call Path of Exile an MMO when it can't even support a large number of players, let alone a massive amount! Here is a page directly from the developers stating they hate being called an MMO because they only allow a couple dozen players max in cities.
http://pathofexile.wikia.com/wiki/Why_we_hate_being_called_an_MMORPG
Like how do you mess up MMO? Its either massively multiplayer and online or it isn't. If the game isn't capable, its not capable. No amount of mislabeling a game is going to change that.
https://www.technobuffalo.com/2016/04/12/thousands-gather-for-the-closure-of-world-of-warcrafts-popular-private-server/
So tell me, how is a game that is an MMO, not an MMO in your eyes? Is it going to be that illogical argument that an MMO isnt an MMO cause where you played early game felt lonely? That's like saying a car isn't a car when its in park. Well it still offers you the opportunity to drive. Its functionally still the same thing when still.