For me, "massively multiplayer" means hundreds of characters playing simultaneously in the same area.
Otherwise it's only a "multiplayer" game.
nah ... it is only a "multiplayer" game with a label more fun to discuss than the games itself.
If only we were all so easily amused...
At least I can say I'm not so easily manipulated by basic marketing and game lists designed to help web sites stay relevant during a drought in the genre; which would be sad.
"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
MMO is a playstyle of a game not how many people are on it. All online games are multiplayer, doesnt mean they are mmos. LoL is not an mmo its just an rpg moba. Heroes of the storm isnt an mmo its also a moba. Wow is an mmorpg. Twelve sky 2, Flyff, Lineage 2, all mmos because thats what they were built to be. Built to hold many people and utilizing multiple servers to contain the mass amounts of people. Massive meaning the world is enormous (usually) Multiplayer meaning more than one player Online meaning all on the same instance. Games like Destiny and WarFrame shouldnt be considered mmos they should be OARPG or online action role playing game. But that's just how i see things.
MMO is a playstyle of a game not how many people are on it. All online games are multiplayer, doesnt mean they are mmos. LoL is not an mmo its just an rpg moba. Heroes of the storm isnt an mmo its also a moba. Wow is an mmorpg. Twelve sky 2, Flyff, Lineage 2, all mmos because thats what they were built to be. Built to hold many people and utilizing multiple servers to contain the mass amounts of people. Massive meaning the world is enormous (usually) Multiplayer meaning more than one player Online meaning all on the same instance. Games like Destiny and WarFrame shouldnt be considered mmos they should be OARPG or online action role playing game. But that's just how i see things.
It's 'Massively multiplayer' not 'Massive, Multiplayer' and yes. That means the number of players catered for is part of the definition.
according to the classification on this site, fewer than 20.
how many for a regular multiplayer according to same classification?
Also "fewer than 20" by any chance?
Most likely so.
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.
Can you describe the differences from regular multiplayer labels by any chance?
Of course not, since there is little or no difference. But why ask me? You should ask those who did the classification.
Actually as I have quoted in numerous post they have expanded coverage not expanded the definition.
Really?
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?
You bring up world of tanks but the rest of the games you talk about are not MMO or counted as MMO.
Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously.
according to the classification on this site, fewer than 20.
how many for a regular multiplayer according to same classification?
Also "fewer than 20" by any chance?
Most likely so.
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.
Can you describe the differences from regular multiplayer labels by any chance?
Of course not, since there is little or no difference. But why ask me? You should ask those who did the classification.
Actually as I have quoted in numerous post they have expanded coverage not expanded the definition.
Really?
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?
You bring up world of tanks but the rest of the games you talk about are not MMO or counted as MMO.
Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
Our Game List will have a field added for genre to include things like Action MMO, MMOFPS, MMORTS, MOBA, CORPG and so forth. We’ll comb through and adjust titles like Guild Wars, Vindictus to reflect this change over time.
We will (as always) preface the news about any game with a link to that game’s listing, and it will be clearly stated on the Game Listing what sub genre it fits into.
Anything else you think we need to do, we’re always glad to hear, and we do take all suggestions seriously.
How about this; start checking the number of concurrent players and stop adding MMO to everything that has a connection to the internet but only has 10v10 games. Maybe then Narri will finally shut up, or at least start talking sense.
A MMO game has no limit (the limit is basically due to our technology) of players interacting in a same virtual world.
The only limit I can think of would be how good the game is to the greatest number of players. If it's a run away success, more servers can always be added. Look at Second Life, a huge world with God only knows how many members.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
How about this; start checking the number of concurrent players and stop adding MMO to everything that has a connection to the internet but only has 10v10 games. Maybe then Narri will finally shut up, or at least start talking sense.
If you can make all the websites do that, I will find something else to talk about.
As of right now, World of Tank is classified as a "action MMO" (direct quote) on this site. So tell me, how many are there in a game of WoT?
How about this; start checking the number of concurrent players and stop adding MMO to everything that has a connection to the internet but only has 10v10 games. Maybe then Narri will finally shut up, or at least start talking sense.
If you can make all the websites do that, I will find something else to talk about.
As of right now, World of Tank is classified as a "action MMO" (direct quote) on this site. So tell me, how many are there in a game of WoT?
Just because this site calls it an MMO, doesn't mean it is.
This thread is about discussing our personal opinions on what is needed to call a game an MMO. From the looks of it, your criteria is "If a website calls it an MMO, then I will too". Its fine if you don't want to have your own opinion on the matter.
For the rest of us, I think this thread has generated a decent discussion. It's highlighted English comprehension issues with a few people but mostly, it seems that 500-1000 concurrent players in the same world is around the minimum number of be classified as an MMO.
Given that genres / classifications have no strict definitions, no governing body to set their meaning but are instead only useful when agreed upon by the majority of the community, it seems like the majority of the community agrees on what an MMO is and that WoT is not an MMO.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Given that genres / classifications have no strict definitions, no governing body to set their meaning but are instead only useful when agreed upon by the majority of the community, it seems like the majority of the community agrees on what an MMO is and that WoT is not an MMO.
If you can actually back that up with data, rather than a few posts on this thread?
Assuming what you said is true, isn't it interesting that this, and many other MMO sites simply use a classification that does not agree with the "majority of the community" (if you can prove your statement)?
I think the correct answer is one... one writer calling it an MMO.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Given that genres / classifications have no strict definitions, no governing body to set their meaning but are instead only useful when agreed upon by the majority of the community, it seems like the majority of the community agrees on what an MMO is and that WoT is not an MMO.
If you can actually back that up with data, rather than a few posts on this thread?
Assuming what you said is true, isn't it interesting that this, and many other MMO sites simply use a classification that does not agree with the "majority of the community" (if you can prove your statement)?
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on this site where they define what they think MMO means. The games list at the top does say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", however, next to each game it lists the genre. Included in the list of games are a lot of single player games which very clearly are not MMOs, so it looks like the title of the list is in error, rather than the editors actually thinking that every single game is an MMO.
As to whether I think it's interesting or not that MMO sites review non-MMO games: not really. I wish they didn't, but it's a business choice. Whenever a niche industry experiences a slump, that industry diversifies. This website generates money through advertising so it is in their interest to attract as many visitors as possible. Diversifying the content in order to attract a wider audience and thus generate money money is natural, especially when there is (I expect) a large cross-over between MMOs and the new genres the site is reviewing.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
There's really no way to come up with a strict definition that isn't somewhat arbitrary.
However, I've played several games that were considered "just" multiplayer even with 64 or 128 players. As such, I think it's a reasonable thing to say that MMOs should probably go beyond a couple of hundred.
An MMO isn't defined by the limit but by the fact it has NO LIMIT (excluding technical limitations) on the number of players playing the same game, at the same time in the same world/environment.
Play a game like WOW and you could have anywhere from 0 to thousands in the same game, at the same time in the same world.
Play a game like WOT and you have a maximum of 30 in the same game, at the same time in the same environment.
An MMO isn't defined by the limit but by the fact it has NO LIMIT (excluding technical limitations) on the number of players playing the same game, at the same time in the same world/environment.
An MMO isn't defined by the limit but by the fact it has NO LIMIT (excluding technical limitations) on the number of players playing the same game, at the same time in the same world/environment.
Play a game like WOW and you could have anywhere from 0 to thousands in the same game, at the same time in the same world.
Play a game like WOT and you have a maximum of 30 in the same game, at the same time in the same environment.
That is truly interesting approach, howerver it would be still difficult to apply.
The problem is, the line between technical and design limitation can be thin and very often one leads to another.
That would lead to situations that one game could be classified as MMO but other, with very similar game play but much higher technical requirements could not fit in.
Regardless, this isn't as much about what is MMO but rather what is not.
An MMO isn't defined by the limit but by the fact it has NO LIMIT (excluding technical limitations) on the number of players playing the same game, at the same time in the same world/environment.
Play a game like WOW and you could have anywhere from 0 to thousands in the same game, at the same time in the same world.
Play a game like WOT and you have a maximum of 30 in the same game, at the same time in the same environment.
Good point.
That said, even if a game can have millions of players - I do think you need a certain amount in the same "interaction space".
Meaning, it's not much of an MMO if there's no easy way to interact with enough players.
For that reason, I don't really consider Diablo 3 much of an MMO. I mean, they've all but eliminated trading and general interaction.
It could technically be an MMO, but the interaction with hundreds or thousands of people is entirely absent.
NOT MMO's LOL = 8 (it is 4 vs 4 right? Been a while) WOT = 30 (15vs15) Chess 2 (1vs1)
MMO's WOW = no defined limit EQ, EQ2 = No defined limit AOC = No defined limit
I do understand your point but I just can't think of something that would fit into the grey area atm but willing to discuss.
Take an example of WoT. It isn't technically feasible to have a game with this extensive physcis to sport unlimited amount of players, thus design decision has to be made. Now, is the limitation still by design like in case of LoL or not?
MMOs - AoC and pretty much any new game has limits on how many players can play in an instance. They call it megaservers these days but principle is the same like in case of WoT, just the limit is higher.
It isn't all that black & white as you think. There are many games that fall right in between, ie. Skyforge - the limits are higher than WoT but lower than AoC.
There's a 4-player party limit, sure, but you're essentially interacting with millions of players if you chat in public channels.
Well if you can only have 4 players in the same game, at the same time in the same world environment then it is just an MOG to me. I don't personally care how many people can chat to me, if I cannot interact with them because they do not exist in the same world/environment then it isn't interaction, just chat.
Think of it this way.
If you had a hall filled with 100 chess players all playing chess and all chatting, would you say that there were 100 players per chess game or just 2? My answer is just 2 with 98 observers/listeners per game.
Comments
At least I can say I'm not so easily manipulated by basic marketing and game lists designed to help web sites stay relevant during a drought in the genre; which would be sad.
"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
Here’s how we’re going to make sure that MMORPG.com still primarily remains a site about the Everquests and WoWs of the world.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
a one.. a two... a tree....
Figure that one out and you will find your answer.
The world may never know.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
As of right now, World of Tank is classified as a "action MMO" (direct quote) on this site. So tell me, how many are there in a game of WoT?
This thread is about discussing our personal opinions on what is needed to call a game an MMO. From the looks of it, your criteria is "If a website calls it an MMO, then I will too". Its fine if you don't want to have your own opinion on the matter.
For the rest of us, I think this thread has generated a decent discussion. It's highlighted English comprehension issues with a few people but mostly, it seems that 500-1000 concurrent players in the same world is around the minimum number of be classified as an MMO.
Given that genres / classifications have no strict definitions, no governing body to set their meaning but are instead only useful when agreed upon by the majority of the community, it seems like the majority of the community agrees on what an MMO is and that WoT is not an MMO.
Assuming what you said is true, isn't it interesting that this, and many other MMO sites simply use a classification that does not agree with the "majority of the community" (if you can prove your statement)?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=MMO-massively-multiplayer-online
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27054/massively-multiplayer-online-game-mmog
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mmorpg
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/MMORPG.html
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mmorpg
Unfortunately I couldn't find anything on this site where they define what they think MMO means. The games list at the top does say "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", however, next to each game it lists the genre. Included in the list of games are a lot of single player games which very clearly are not MMOs, so it looks like the title of the list is in error, rather than the editors actually thinking that every single game is an MMO.
As to whether I think it's interesting or not that MMO sites review non-MMO games: not really. I wish they didn't, but it's a business choice. Whenever a niche industry experiences a slump, that industry diversifies. This website generates money through advertising so it is in their interest to attract as many visitors as possible. Diversifying the content in order to attract a wider audience and thus generate money money is natural, especially when there is (I expect) a large cross-over between MMOs and the new genres the site is reviewing.
However, I've played several games that were considered "just" multiplayer even with 64 or 128 players. As such, I think it's a reasonable thing to say that MMOs should probably go beyond a couple of hundred.
Play a game like WOW and you could have anywhere from 0 to thousands in the same game, at the same time in the same world.
Play a game like WOT and you have a maximum of 30 in the same game, at the same time in the same environment.
Besides my Tootsie Pop theory of coarse
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I retired retroactively..Haha
The problem is, the line between technical and design limitation can be thin and very often one leads to another.
That would lead to situations that one game could be classified as MMO but other, with very similar game play but much higher technical requirements could not fit in.
Regardless, this isn't as much about what is MMO but rather what is not.
That said, even if a game can have millions of players - I do think you need a certain amount in the same "interaction space".
Meaning, it's not much of an MMO if there's no easy way to interact with enough players.
For that reason, I don't really consider Diablo 3 much of an MMO. I mean, they've all but eliminated trading and general interaction.
It could technically be an MMO, but the interaction with hundreds or thousands of people is entirely absent.
NOT MMO's
LOL = 8 (it is 4 vs 4 right? Been a while)
WOT = 30 (15vs15)
Chess 2 (1vs1)
MMO's
WOW = no defined limit
EQ, EQ2 = No defined limit
AOC = No defined limit
I do understand your point but I just can't think of something that would fit into the grey area atm but willing to discuss.
MMOs - AoC and pretty much any new game has limits on how many players can play in an instance. They call it megaservers these days but principle is the same like in case of WoT, just the limit is higher.
It isn't all that black & white as you think. There are many games that fall right in between, ie. Skyforge - the limits are higher than WoT but lower than AoC.
The list can go on and on...
There's a 4-player party limit, sure, but you're essentially interacting with millions of players if you chat in public channels.
Think of it this way.
If you had a hall filled with 100 chess players all playing chess and all chatting, would you say that there were 100 players per chess game or just 2? My answer is just 2 with 98 observers/listeners per game.
Yeah ... some will be unhappy about it, though i don't see what they can do to change things.
Team/Lobby games are not an MMO to me.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile