.... But I think until I see 500 vs 500, I would not bestow the word massive.
And you wouldn't bestow the word massive anyway.
You would bestow the adjective "massively" to qualify the noun "multiplayer".
Agreed. Were you pointing out the correct way to phrase my statement (in which case, thanks, technicalities don't come easily to me) or pointing out a disagreement in how it applies to the concept of MMORPGs?
Either way, I agree; I feel the word "massively" applies to "multiplayer" rather than the world size or other things being argued in this thread.
If we were to begin drawing distinctions in world size, it would be a whole different discussion, I suspect. What matters is how and when players interact, which draws a sharp distinction between, say, Daggerfall and I dunno, Firefall. This is why I used the example of a versus match, to highlight that the interaction between live players is the crucial factor.
And frankly I don't even know if I'd bestow the adjective "massively" upon a game EVEN IF the total player population were 10,000 on a single server, if the world were big enough. Although that's just a hunch.
Question is misleading, would of been better to word it either:
- How many people per server to be considered an mmo? or - How many people per instance to be considered an mmo?
Some theme-park mmo's have caps on zones that number in the dozens, while I don't like this nor consider it a proper mmo, many do this due to either size of zones or tech limitations. I prefer sandbox mmo's with thousands of players in a single instance or theme-parks who at least include 100-200 per instance.
In terms of server capacity, throughout time the number per mmo has jumped up and down, with many games never truly revealing an exact number. There's also these new "mega-servers" to take into consideration which just make a game even more theme-park imo. Obviously it depends on the size of the in-game world of an mmo to say exactly how many people in it makes it an mmo to you, but in general I feel 1,000 + is needed to truly me "massive" (I prefer 10,000+ though).
Haxus Council Member 21 year MMO veteran PvP Raid Leader Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Trying to argue numbers is like arguing what is the best color. You can get a majority but its purely subjective or opinion. Massively is not a exact number.
A 500 vs. 500 timed match isn't MMO to me. A game with 30 players and a persistent world is a MMO to me. I think the spirit of the MMORPG genre and by extension MMO was persistent worlds.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
according to the classification on this site, fewer than 20.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
World of Warcraft is a mmorpg and the greatest one of all time, it the game is anything like World of Warcraft then it's a mmorpg. The number of people do not matter.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Question is misleading, would of been better to word it either:
- How many people per server to be considered an mmo? or - How many people per instance to be considered an mmo?
Some theme-park mmo's have caps on zones that number in the dozens, while I don't like this nor consider it a proper mmo, many do this due to either size of zones or tech limitations. I prefer sandbox mmo's with thousands of players in a single instance or theme-parks who at least include 100-200 per instance.
In terms of server capacity, throughout time the number per mmo has jumped up and down, with many games never truly revealing an exact number. There's also these new "mega-servers" to take into consideration which just make a game even more theme-park imo. Obviously it depends on the size of the in-game world of an mmo to say exactly how many people in it makes it an mmo to you, but in general I feel 1,000 + is needed to truly me "massive" (I prefer 10,000+ though).
I rarely get the question correct. Whatever I use, there is always wording that people improve or clarify.
There are games with a total playerbase less than 50 which are considered MMORPG world eg: RPG MO if it still exists. So, I guess 50+ that are online at the same time in an open world.
The most important factors are the persistent online world and the ability for a meaningfully large sum of players to connect concurrently. Take a game like DayZ Standalone--it has a persistent online world and allows 50 players to connect (or at least last time I played) concurrently, but 50 players is not uncommon and more importantly the game is incapable of supporting more simultaneous connections. Reaching your max number of connections at a common limit isn't massive by any meaning.
It's tough to draw a line, but somewhere around the capacity for a few hundred or so concurrent connections to a singular persistent world, however zoned, is massively IMO. On a side note, when the world lacks any kind of meaningful persistence and is instanced many times to split the users in a particular zone up, I think you're rapidly backing away from the meaning of MMO.
Well if you look up the definition the first M stands for massively and applies to a consistent world. Not the actual population of the world. So in order to be massively it must supply a massive world like WOW,GW2,ESO and not like H1Z1 which only supplies a small zone. Even if H1Z1 had 100k players it isn't giving them a massive world making it a multiplayer online game but not a massively one.
This is a common mistake to make, but your English comprehension isn't quite up to scratch:
Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game - refers to the game size
MassiveLY Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game - refers to population size
By adding the LY to the end of Massive, it applies the adjective to the next word - multiplayer. MMO is entirely about the multiplayer aspect and has nothing to do with the game size. If we defined "massive" as 1000+ concurrent players, then a 500v500 map in battlefield would make it an MMO.
LOL the definition on the wiki changed within the past year which was the last time I researched the topic. Well the new definition is a consistent world which a massive amount of players can interact with each other. So the world can be small like H1Z1 but if it allows a massive amount of players like maybe 500 then it would be considered a mmo. Which would mean that the original online muds were also mmorpg's because they provided a world that a huge number of people could all interact with each other. But honestly has anyone ever seen 1k people in one zone on any mmorpg? How many players does wow allow in 1 of their zones? You realize they have multiple channels of the same zone so it limits how many players are actually together.
Comments
Either way, I agree; I feel the word "massively" applies to "multiplayer" rather than the world size or other things being argued in this thread.
If we were to begin drawing distinctions in world size, it would be a whole different discussion, I suspect. What matters is how and when players interact, which draws a sharp distinction between, say, Daggerfall and I dunno, Firefall. This is why I used the example of a versus match, to highlight that the interaction between live players is the crucial factor.
And frankly I don't even know if I'd bestow the adjective "massively" upon a game EVEN IF the total player population were 10,000 on a single server, if the world were big enough. Although that's just a hunch.
- How many people per server to be considered an mmo?
or
- How many people per instance to be considered an mmo?
Some theme-park mmo's have caps on zones that number in the dozens, while I don't like this nor consider it a proper mmo, many do this due to either size of zones or tech limitations. I prefer sandbox mmo's with thousands of players in a single instance or theme-parks who at least include 100-200 per instance.
In terms of server capacity, throughout time the number per mmo has jumped up and down, with many games never truly revealing an exact number. There's also these new "mega-servers" to take into consideration which just make a game even more theme-park imo. Obviously it depends on the size of the in-game world of an mmo to say exactly how many people in it makes it an mmo to you, but in general I feel 1,000 + is needed to truly me "massive" (I prefer 10,000+ though).
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
A 500 vs. 500 timed match isn't MMO to me. A game with 30 players and a persistent world is a MMO to me. I think the spirit of the MMORPG genre and by extension MMO was persistent worlds.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I self identify as a monkey.
Terms sometimes need to be updated. Technology changes, standards change, MMOs change. These things are rarely static.
I self identify as a monkey.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Hence, this site's broadening the classification of MMOs essentially making the label not very different from other online games.
But I think you already know this.
Very much so. In fact, some even count Healthstone. You cannot be more minimal than 2.
who are "we'?
Downgrade for you .. more traffic and upgrade for this and other sites.
It's tough to draw a line, but somewhere around the capacity for a few hundred or so concurrent connections to a singular persistent world, however zoned, is massively IMO. On a side note, when the world lacks any kind of meaningful persistence and is instanced many times to split the users in a particular zone up, I think you're rapidly backing away from the meaning of MMO.
I just checked. Now World of Tank is classified as an action MMO, and World of Warship a MMOTPS on this site.
So remind me, how many can interact in those games?
Otherwise it's only a "multiplayer" game.