While WoW had some difficult things, overall it was too easy....You never heard people say the games before it were easy (EQ, DAoC, UO, Anarchy Online, FFXI, etc)
Actually, at least in Vanilla WOW you rarely heard people say it was too easy.
People seemed to enjoy the dialed back tedium and reduction in pointless grinding during leveling that at least some of those games you mentioned clearly suffered from.
The mistake made I think was raiding dialed up the difficulty too much, despite what others would have you believe it was challenging to beat those raids, especially if you were not in one of the top 10 raiding guilds in the game.
The second mistake IMO? In later releases they made it too easy to level, almost pointless really, and everyone became hyper focused on quickly reaching the raiding end game.
But thats just me.
people look at the mechanics and say classic was easier, but they neglect the fact that you needed 40 people who were on board and everything was designed as gear and skill checks. Aggro management was also much more difficult back then.
While WoW had some difficult things, overall it was too easy....You never heard people say the games before it were easy (EQ, DAoC, UO, Anarchy Online, FFXI, etc)
Exactly. That's Blizzard's formula of success. A piece for everyone to enjoy.
You keep insist how challenging are the bosses in WoW. I never played WoW. But as I know they even do not have real AI - so they do not react to the players, who attack them. So how can be challenging?
Another important point, which was mentioned - how much time you must spend in general to go to that epic boss? A week, or more, with a team of other people. So how many players, in a game that is mostly solo questing, will do that? So from few millions of players, few thousands have the patience, some fail, and based on that statistics you claim you are a great player in a great game. Really?
Bosses are challenging in MMOs because of the organisation needed to get the guild ready and there for the fight, you may even have to organise a number of guilds for the raid.
Once there you have to concentrate players on the job at hand, many of whom just seem to want to talk the boss to death. Everything from spotting the sensitive types who need a hug if it does not go well first time to placating players who want to keep talking about their optimal build is a must.
I agree with Ikcin that the competition challenge of multiplayer is only truly found in PvP, but handling people to fulfil an aim is a challenge in of itself.
It is indeed very hard to deal with 40 people and make them work together with all the fragile egos. PvP is damn easy in comparison no hurt feelings to assuage or have to make sure people don't break formation or do the wrong thing at the wrong time. PvP is largely every man for himself and even when it is organised you are not going to be dealing with feelings that get hurt and egos that get blunted.
I absolutely dislike this aspect of raiding and having to keep the prima donnas happy like the 'enchanters' and 'clerics' in guilds in Everquest. Some of these players who played these roles really abused their powers since they were needed.
You keep insist how challenging are the bosses in WoW. I never played WoW. But as I know they even do not have real AI - so they do not react to the players, who attack them. So how can be challenging?
"I never played the game, but I know it's easy... Cause... Reasons."
Well, shall I play every game to talk about it? No. Instead to say - WoW has good AI - reasons, which fast will make me say I'm wrong, you attack me. And that makes me think I'm actually right.
Terms like easy are subjective. What one person thinks is easy someone else thinks is hard. Personally I wouldn't play an MMO if it was like Dark Souls for instance. I play MMO's to relax and have fun, not to butt my head against a wall because the difficulty is ridiculous. I also don't want a second job as a player/customer either. Having some things that are harder and take time is fine, but if that is the entire game then that is a no from me. That's just my feelings though.
No, you do not play for fun. Sorry, but this is so obvious. Multiplayer means challenge - you against the other players, or your team against something that needs a team work. A singleplayer game could be for grind and relaxation - like solitaire or puzzles. So when you say MMO, you do not mean MMO. Maybe you play for pleasure and enjoyment, but certainly not for fun.
Also challenge like we already made clear here is not about the time sink.
So you get to decide how I play games. OK, no I play for fun sorry if you think you can decide how others play that just isn't the case. All games are for fun, if not then there is no point whatsoever as it isn't entertainment it is work. Also time sinks can be a challenge because not everyone is a kid sitting in their parents house with 24 hrs able to play a game so making something take a long time by having to put in time to the game could be a challenge for someone who has a real life outside of games. Anything that requires a person to overcome something is a challenge by the way. Guess what finding time to play a game is a challenge for many people today. Just because you don't think something is something doesn't make it a fact either. Facts are the same for everyone.
You keep insist how challenging are the bosses in WoW. I never played WoW. But as I know they even do not have real AI - so they do not react to the players, who attack them. So how can be challenging?
"I never played the game, but I know it's easy... Cause... Reasons."
Well, shall I play every game to talk about it? No. Instead to say - WoW has good AI - reasons, which fast will make me say I'm wrong, you attack me. And that makes me think I'm actually right.
You can think whatever you like, but what you're saying is both grossly inaccurate and, frankly, doesn't even make sense.
It's telling that these "Games are so easy!" threads are always started by people who have never even managed to do the things they claim are so easy.
No, you do not play for fun. Sorry, but this is so obvious. Multiplayer means challenge - you against the other players, or your team against something that needs a team work.
MMORPGs do offer competitive and cooperative challenge for players, but it isn't all they offer. As such, they also attract players that do not require challenge for enjoyment.
As for not playing for fun, anyone playing a game that isn't having fun is doing it wrong, or the game simply doesn't offer what the player enjoys.
Whether that fun is hard as nails, bleeding edge content that must be tackled with concerted precision, or decorating your house just so, doesn't really matter so long as it there.
In general, I find the more the game is story-driven, the less I care for the game being uber hard. Reloading or restarting constantly throws the entire pacing of the story off.
With regards to MMORPGs, the story (generally) isn't such a focus. There I don't mind something a little harder, forcing me to blow cooldowns and such to survive. Every fight shouldn't be a down-to-the-wire brawl imo, but things like open world bosses/LTs, large groups of mobs, etc. that are enjoyably more difficult than the majority of mobs gives variety to the leveling experience and helps keep things interesting.
Fun, relaxation and pleasure are different things. I did not use the word wrong, as if the games allow it, it cannot be wrong. But obviously he does not play MMOs for the multiplayer experience, which is kind of ridiculous. And he is not alone.
Yes, the are, but they are not exclusive things one to the other. Some may require a relaxed play experience for it to be fun, for them. Others will only find fun in challenge.
A lot of people play MMORPGs for other than the multiplayer experience as most of them offer more than just that. It would be ridiculous to try to play solo in MMORPGs that only have a multiplayer experience, but that is seldom if ever the case these days.
It is kind of ridiculous that people are still clinging to the way MMORPGs used to be as an ironclad, incontestable model of how they must be. Way back when grouping was the way much had to be done, such that it is was virtually inherently the heart of the genre. It is now simply a way to play, and one that is generally disposable for a good amount of content.
Playing MMORPGs solo is simply another viable way to enjoy the genre at present, and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that suggests that will change any time soon.
Fun, relaxation and pleasure are different things. I did not use the word wrong, as if the games allow it, it cannot be wrong. But obviously he does not play MMOs for the multiplayer experience, which is kind of ridiculous. And he is not alone.
Yes, the are, but they are not exclusive things one to the other. Some may require a relaxed play experience for it to be fun, for them. Others will only find fun in challenge.
A lot of people play MMORPGs for other than the multiplayer experience as most of them offer more than just that. It would be ridiculous to try to play solo in MMORPGs that only have a multiplayer experience, but that is seldom if ever the case these days.
It is kind of ridiculous that people are still clinging to the way MMORPGs used to be as an ironclad, incontestable model of how they must be. Way back when grouping was the way much had to be done, such that it is was virtually inherently the heart of the genre. It is now simply a way to play, and one that is generally disposable for a good amount of content.
Playing MMORPGs solo is simply another viable way to enjoy the genre at present, and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that suggests that will change any time soon.
Fun is intensive feeling of pleasure. It is the opposite of relaxation. You cannot laugh calm. It does not matter why people play the games. There are as many reasons, as the players probably. But the MMO is a MMO, and when you play it as a singleplayer game there is something wrong with that game. Multiplayer does not mean grouping. You may compete and cooperate without any group. That is why these games are called massively multiplayer. The fact your character can be killed and looted in every moment in EVE for example, is not related with the grouping. It is just a multiplayer game. And that risk makes it challenging. If you can play safe and sound - this is not a multiplayer game, and it cannot be challenging, so it is easy. Pretty obvious, pretty logical, period.
And if you say now - but this or that game is MMO, and it is singleplayer, safe and sound - obviously the game you are talking about is not a MMO, no matter how it is labeled.
And not a single thing has been learned...
Still waiting on the definition of an MMO and its source, you know, the definition that says these rules are not just stuff in your head. You dodged it in the other thread, maybe here you could give us readers some evidence besides self proclaimed logic and faulty reasoning, facts please. Thanks!
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Fun, relaxation and pleasure are different things. I did not use the word wrong, as if the games allow it, it cannot be wrong. But obviously he does not play MMOs for the multiplayer experience, which is kind of ridiculous. And he is not alone.
Yes, the are, but they are not exclusive things one to the other. Some may require a relaxed play experience for it to be fun, for them. Others will only find fun in challenge.
A lot of people play MMORPGs for other than the multiplayer experience as most of them offer more than just that. It would be ridiculous to try to play solo in MMORPGs that only have a multiplayer experience, but that is seldom if ever the case these days.
It is kind of ridiculous that people are still clinging to the way MMORPGs used to be as an ironclad, incontestable model of how they must be. Way back when grouping was the way much had to be done, such that it is was virtually inherently the heart of the genre. It is now simply a way to play, and one that is generally disposable for a good amount of content.
Playing MMORPGs solo is simply another viable way to enjoy the genre at present, and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that suggests that will change any time soon.
Fun is intensive feeling of pleasure. It is the opposite of relaxation. You cannot laugh calm. It does not matter why people play the games. There are as many reasons, as the players probably. But the MMO is a MMO, and when you play it as a singleplayer game there is something wrong with that game. Multiplayer does not mean grouping. You may compete and cooperate without any group. That is why these games are called massively multiplayer. The fact your character can be killed and looted in every moment in EVE for example, is not related with the grouping. It is just a multiplayer game. And that risk makes it challenging. If you can play safe and sound - this is not a multiplayer game, and it cannot be challenging, so it is easy. Pretty obvious, pretty logical, period.
And if you say now - but this or that game is MMO, and it is singleplayer, safe and sound - obviously the game you are talking about is not a MMO, no matter how it is labeled.
Fun is whatever people find to be fun. What you feel to be fun only applies to you. You don't get to determine what fun is for anyone else.
If you can play safe and sound in a multiplayer game, it remains a multiplayer game, as there are still multiple players that you can game with when you desire.
The only thing obvious about your position is that it is devoid of logic.
Multiplayer is defined as more than one player. There is no requirement except in your head that it means more than that. Check the meaning online and stop trying to drop our collective intelligence by trying to argue with your definitions that has been made up by you.
Your definitions are to forward your agenda. It has nothing absolutely nothing to do with what that acronym means nor what it entails. You come on one thread after another trying to use this tired argument and not even bothering to pretend to address the topic at hand.
In the last thread you also blamed the posters in it for not enlightening you on what WoW gameplay is like because you were too caught up with your own importance and arrogance on how everyone else is wrong and you were right about a game you never played. I was amused by your attempt to blame others for your ignorance and why should we educate you, it would have been a waste of our time seeing as you have inventive ways to twist everything to your perverted point of view.
Still waiting on the definition of an MMO and its source, you know, the definition that says these rules are not just stuff in your head. You dodged it in the other thread, maybe here you could give us readers some evidence besides self proclaimed logic and faulty reasoning, facts please. Thanks!
/Cheers, Lahnmir
MMORPG - Massively multiplayer online role playing game. What is so hard to understand? I think you do not know, or to be exact you do not want to understand what these words mean. But all of them have pretty obvious and direct meaning. No matter what you claim, to approve that massive and multiplayer is the same as massively multiplayer - it is simply not. If you claim that multiplayer is just existence of more than one players - this is obviously wrong as they should play together - compete or cooperate. Many people in internet are trying to create new meanings for these words, so their games to fit in the term MMO. And this is simply wrong. Multiplayer game is a multiplayer game, no matter if you play video game, chess, cards with friends or basketball in a school yard.
You're getting closer to the issue. More then one player as a requirement is ridiculous and something I have never said. It is indeed multiple people playing together. But the together part is where it goes wrong for you, you come up with a sub set of rules of what playing together means, and these rules are just yours. RPing for instance is playing together too, just text and some emotes, perhaps a chair to sit on, a costume to wear. You can RP in all MMOs you are calling non MMOs. All these games have guilds and guild features for playing together, dozens of people or more too, not MMOs to you. World bosses to kill with large groups of people, totally MMO, totally in the games you call non MMOs. Playing the Auction House/trades, a system used by many, influencing everybodies experience, very MMO in the games you keep calling non MMOs. And then I haven't even touched the PVP side of things yet.... Do I need to go on?
It is about a large group of people interacting in one world, what type of interaction goes and which doesn't isn't up for you to decide.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I like being/feeling OP, but only after earning it. And I also like the option of being able to ratchet up the difficulty when I want to make my butt pucker just a little...
You cannot equate a basketball game to MMORPG. The rules of basketball are different. I suspect you know that or you're being an ass on purpose. Multiplayer only means more than one player. Please for the love of god check the meaning !
League of Legends is not a persistent game. Each game also has like 10 players if I am not mistaken 5 on each side. That is not massively multiplayer.
I am not the wall you are because of your obstinate insistence you are correct when you're dead wrong. You have no concept of what MMORPG means.
If you place 10 players on a field and give to everyone of them a ball to play solo , is that a basketball? Is that multiplayer? Only if these players compete and cooperate for the possession of the ball the game becomes multiplayer and basketball. You could claim that if you put these players with avatars on a map of a video game it is different - but it is not.
What is RP? Every one of those players has a role. There is a centre, power forward, small forward, shooting guard, point guard. But if you put them to play solo - they have no roles anymore. They are just solo players with balls who attempt to make points - some are better, some are not.
And then comes the massively multiplayer part. It is the League. Many teams compete or maybe sometimes cooperate in the competition. And every player could affect the rank of a team, even when the match is not against that team.
Why LoL is not a MMO for example? Because most players do not play ranked. And even if they do - it does not matter, as it is not a real competition - every win or loss is for the current match only. The championships with the pro players in LoL are MMO. But LoL itself is not, as most of the players do not affect each others gameplay and ranks. If they do - it is only in the current match they play. So it is certainly multiplayer, but not massively multiplayer.
And here you are, trying to decide what goes and what doesn't, again....
But I learned a valuable lesson today. Besides not knowing what an MMO is you also don't know what a MOBA is, go figure.
Its like a grave digging itself, fascinating.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If you place 10 players on a field and give to everyone of them a ball to play solo , is that a basketball? Is that multiplayer? Only if these players compete and cooperate for the possession of the ball the game becomes multiplayer and basketball. You could claim that if you put these players with avatars on a map of a video game it is different - but it is not.
What is RP? Every one of those players has a role. There is a centre, power forward, small forward, shooting guard, point guard. But if you put them to play solo - they have no roles anymore. They are just solo players with balls who attempt to make points - some are better, some are not.
And then comes the massively multiplayer part. It is the League. Many teams compete or maybe sometimes cooperate in the competition. And every player could affect the rank of a team, even when the match is not against that team.
Why LoL is not a MMO for example? Because most players do not play ranked. And even if they do - it does not matter, as it is not a real competition - every win or loss is for the current match only. The championships with the pro players in LoL are MMO. But LoL itself is not, as most of the players do not affect each others gameplay and ranks. If they do - it is only in the current match they play. So it is certainly multiplayer, but not massively multiplayer.
And here you are, trying to decide what goes and what doesn't, again....
But I learned a valuable lesson today. Besides not knowing what an MMO is you also don't know what a MOBA is, go figure.
Its like a grave digging itself, fascinating.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes absolutely he does not know what a MOBA is either... not very bright and I actually thought he was crafty my mistake. He is just uninformed and stubborn in his ignorance.
One continues to try to argue against his ridiculous examples but this is like arguing with someone who argues that a carrot is blue. He overturns the well established concepts and one is at a loss how he can be this obtuse. Is it deliberate or just one of those people who cannot bear to be wrong or disagreed with.
His arguments don't make any sense because they are based on completely misguided and erroneous ideas.
Considering you do not know what an MMORPG is I would not be too surprised even if you have won 150 games in LoL that you know what genre that is either.
I am not picking the definition of multiplayer from my nether regions though. It is a well established definition yours however is plucked from there.
So you claim 10 players with balls on a field who play solo, play multiplayer basketball Multiplayer is a game played with multiple players - not from them, but with them. So it is not enough just to place them on a field/map. They have to play together in competition and/or cooperation.
And to get back on the topic - the multiplayer games are in general harder, and specially when you compete with the other player. So who likes easy? Maybe the solo players.
Basketball is a team sport, and nothing else, and as such requires a concerted team effort to play it. MMORPGs have content that requires team play, and a great deal else. There are many activities in them that don't require a team, so concerted effort within them is optional.
The two are not analogous, making any attempt to try to use one to bolster your personal view of the other into some sort of universal truth destined to fail.
They are multiplayer games but they are not the same type of multiplayer games. That is where you are in error. You are equating two things that fall within the definition of multiplayer but they are not the same games. Therefore you cannot use the basketball to disprove the multiplayer aspect in an MMORPG.
Multiplayer means more than one person which if there are more than one person playing will make an MMORPG qualify as one and generally every MMORPG is designed to have more than one player.
It does not require options it is merely descriptive it has no qualifications. This is in reference to multiplayer that is.
I hope you know what an adverb and adjective is or we are wasting our time. Check the meaning of MMORPG properly and try to stop wasting our time explaining basic things to you.
Basketball is a team sport, and nothing else, and as such requires a concerted team effort to play it. MMORPGs have content that requires team play, and a great deal else. There are many activities in them that don't require a team, so concerted effort within them is optional.
The two are not analogous, making any attempt to try to use one to bolster your personal view of the other into some sort of universal truth destined to fail.
So you claim the multiplayer in MMORPG is only optional?
Actually, the Massively Multiplayer refers to a large group of people playing in the same world, this can be together, this can be alone. This can be PVE, this can be PVP, else it would be a MGORPG, Massively Grouping Online Roleplaying Game. Really, you got it fundamentally wrong, I wish you could see that instead of getting more and more snarky when backed into a corner because your definition doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The first rule of a proper debate, knowing you might be proven wrong... Ohh, and having facts, AND knowing what facts are.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Comments
Once there you have to concentrate players on the job at hand, many of whom just seem to want to talk the boss to death. Everything from spotting the sensitive types who need a hug if it does not go well first time to placating players who want to keep talking about their optimal build is a must.
I agree with Ikcin that the competition challenge of multiplayer is only truly found in PvP, but handling people to fulfil an aim is a challenge in of itself.
I absolutely dislike this aspect of raiding and having to keep the prima donnas happy like the 'enchanters' and 'clerics' in guilds in Everquest. Some of these players who played these roles really abused their powers since they were needed.
As for not playing for fun, anyone playing a game that isn't having fun is doing it wrong, or the game simply doesn't offer what the player enjoys.
Whether that fun is hard as nails, bleeding edge content that must be tackled with concerted precision, or decorating your house just so, doesn't really matter so long as it there.
With regards to MMORPGs, the story (generally) isn't such a focus. There I don't mind something a little harder, forcing me to blow cooldowns and such to survive. Every fight shouldn't be a down-to-the-wire brawl imo, but things like open world bosses/LTs, large groups of mobs, etc. that are enjoyably more difficult than the majority of mobs gives variety to the leveling experience and helps keep things interesting.
A lot of people play MMORPGs for other than the multiplayer experience as most of them offer more than just that. It would be ridiculous to try to play solo in MMORPGs that only have a multiplayer experience, but that is seldom if ever the case these days.
It is kind of ridiculous that people are still clinging to the way MMORPGs used to be as an ironclad, incontestable model of how they must be. Way back when grouping was the way much had to be done, such that it is was virtually inherently the heart of the genre. It is now simply a way to play, and one that is generally disposable for a good amount of content.
Playing MMORPGs solo is simply another viable way to enjoy the genre at present, and there is nothing in the foreseeable future that suggests that will change any time soon.
Still waiting on the definition of an MMO and its source, you know, the definition that says these rules are not just stuff in your head. You dodged it in the other thread, maybe here you could give us readers some evidence besides self proclaimed logic and faulty reasoning, facts please. Thanks!
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If you can play safe and sound in a multiplayer game, it remains a multiplayer game, as there are still multiple players that you can game with when you desire.
The only thing obvious about your position is that it is devoid of logic.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Your definitions are to forward your agenda. It has nothing absolutely nothing to do with what that acronym means nor what it entails. You come on one thread after another trying to use this tired argument and not even bothering to pretend to address the topic at hand.
In the last thread you also blamed the posters in it for not enlightening you on what WoW gameplay is like because you were too caught up with your own importance and arrogance on how everyone else is wrong and you were right about a game you never played. I was amused by your attempt to blame others for your ignorance and why should we educate you, it would have been a waste of our time seeing as you have inventive ways to twist everything to your perverted point of view.
It is about a large group of people interacting in one world, what type of interaction goes and which doesn't isn't up for you to decide.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
League of Legends is not a persistent game. Each game also has like 10 players if I am not mistaken 5 on each side. That is not massively multiplayer.
I am not the wall you are because of your obstinate insistence you are correct when you're dead wrong. You have no concept of what MMORPG means.
But I learned a valuable lesson today. Besides not knowing what an MMO is you also don't know what a MOBA is, go figure.
Its like a grave digging itself, fascinating.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
One continues to try to argue against his ridiculous examples but this is like arguing with someone who argues that a carrot is blue. He overturns the well established concepts and one is at a loss how he can be this obtuse. Is it deliberate or just one of those people who cannot bear to be wrong or disagreed with.
His arguments don't make any sense because they are based on completely misguided and erroneous ideas.
The two are not analogous, making any attempt to try to use one to bolster your personal view of the other into some sort of universal truth destined to fail.
Nice try though.
It does not require options it is merely descriptive it has no qualifications. This is in reference to multiplayer that is.
I hope you know what an adverb and adjective is or we are wasting our time. Check the meaning of MMORPG properly and try to stop wasting our time explaining basic things to you.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer