yeah I know but its a subject that pains me greatly and I felt like saying it.
Its not what the intent of RPG was but the industry basterized it and made it very limiting because of their lack of understanding and now its considered a defintion that make me sad enough to reponse to it when I see it.
"Bastardized" probably overstates it.
Keep in mind tabletop RPGs started with dungeon crawling where traps and monsters were the two main problems you encountered. So combat was one of the primary components right from the start.
You could point out that while 99% of videogame RPGs were combat-focused, the proportion was lower in tabletop RPGs. But I'd expect the number is still over 80% of tabletop RPGs being combat-focused (in terms of the rules at least; in terms of gameplay, a tabletop RPG is going to provide whatever mix of activities your DM and players' are interested in.)
So while combat was generally a little less of a focus in tabletop RPGs compared with videogame RPGs, the difference isn't large enough to claim that videogame RPGs "bastardized" tabletop ones.
and what is the problem even if there is a difference?
Video games are much faster than a tabletop game, can be played solo, and the audience is much much bigger.
So what if crpg is much more combat focused than tabletop RPGs. There is no reason it has to keep everything the same. It is basically a different kind of entertainment, inspired by tabletop RPGs (which are inspired by tabletop war games).
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
I'll take this as a win LOL. You literally could not state 4 shooter features so that I could prove the Division was different.
Its easier to just leave the thread rather than get proven wrong over and over again. Even after I showed over 100 players were possible in the division.. even after people that played the actual game gave you differences..
it was best you bowed out than be proved wrong. We understand.
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
I'll take this as a win LOL. You literally could not state 4 shooter features so that I could prove the Division was different.
Its easier to just leave the thread rather than get proven wrong over and over again. Even after I showed over 100 players were possible in the division.. even after people that played the actual game gave you differences..
it was best you bowed out than be proved wrong. We understand.
I would think 'win' depends on your objective I am still leaving (trying to) the coversation with the same impression of The Divsion as an MMO as I had when I started. NO CORRECTIN, when I started I didnt know I was neutral, after this coversation and how it went I am pretty sure its not an MMO.
so nice win there buddy.
I am also looking on the internet for anything related to 'in what way is The Divsion and MMo' and I am not finding anythign other than debates.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
Is GW1 an MMO? I think at this point in time the majority of people have shifted from thinking it was a CRPG to believing it to be an MMO although one that is highly instanced and lobby based. The Division basically operates the same as GW1. Therefore, it is an MMO. For a more recent example see Skyforge.
I mean you've got to have your head in the sand to say it's the same as CoD, BF, CSGO, etc. or a standard multiplayer shooter.
This is really just arguing semantics and Ubisoft doesn't want it to be labeled an MMO anyway. That way they can stop supporting it in a year and sell consumers The Division 2. MMO is a bad label to put on your games these days which is why most companies are avoiding it and happy to support your claims that these are not MMO's which would require actually supporting the community and developing ongoing long term content.
As an aside I would argue that the definition of MMO on Wikipedia is outdated as it has changed a lot with the times. Requiring everyone to be in the same instance would toss a lot of legit MMO's out the window.
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
Is GW1 an MMO? I think at this point in time the majority of people have shifted from thinking it was a CRPG to believing it to be an MMO although one that is highly instanced and lobby based. The Division basically operates the same as GW1. Therefore, it is an MMO. For a more recent example see Skyforge.
I mean you've got to have your head in the sand to say it's the same as CoD, BF, CSGO, etc. or a standard multiplayer shooter.
This is really just arguing semantics and Ubisoft doesn't want it to be labeled an MMO anyway. That way they can stop supporting it in a year and sell consumers The Division 2. MMO is a bad label to put on your games these days which is why most companies are avoiding it and happy to support your claims that these are not MMO's which would require actually supporting the community and developing ongoing long term content.
sorry but I know nothing at all about Gw1 or skyforge so it would be risky for me to answer that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
After debating on this all day long and being served examples of The Division being an MMO which I do not agree are pillars of an MMO defition and getting the run around when I ask what makes the Division different from a multiplayer online shooter and given that people want to pull into an arguement that suggests 24 players can be considered 'massive' I think I am just going to leave this thread and go with my views that its not an MMO and ubisoft is just trying to allude that it is for marketing reasons and that they are generally full of it as usual with this and thier 30FPS
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me. later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
I'll take this as a win LOL. You literally could not state 4 shooter features so that I could prove the Division was different.
Its easier to just leave the thread rather than get proven wrong over and over again. Even after I showed over 100 players were possible in the division.. even after people that played the actual game gave you differences..
it was best you bowed out than be proved wrong. We understand.
I would think 'win' depends on your objective I am still leaving (trying to) the coversation with the same impression of The Divsion as an MMO as I had when I started. NO CORRECTIN, when I started I didnt know I was neutral, after this coversation and how it went I am pretty sure its not an MMO.
so nice win there buddy.
I am also looking on the internet for anything related to 'in what way is The Divsion and MMo' and I am not finding anythign other than debates.
It is a win.. simply because you can't debate it... It doesn't have to be an MMO.. In fact we stated a number of times that The developers state it isn't an mmo... but they compare it to them. Publications say its an MMO.. Some players say its an MMO.. some players don't. We don't really have to "prove" anything.
You can't "prove" its not an MMO... you can't even prove its not "just a shooter" like all those other shooters you HAVEN'T played. You told Ubisoft they should keep their traps shut. Perhaps that advice should be equally taken by those that don't play "shooters" nor the games they're talking about? Hmm?
It is a win.. simply because you can't debate it... It doesn't have to be an MMO.. In fact we stated a number of times that The developers state it isn't an mmo... but they compare it to them. Publications say its an MMO.. Some players say its an MMO.. some players don't. We don't really have to "prove" anything.
You can't "prove" its not an MMO... you can't even prove its not "just a shooter" like all those other shooters you HAVEN'T played. You told Ubisoft they should keep their traps shut. Perhaps that advice should be equally taken by those that don't play "shooters" nor the games they're talking about? Hmm?
but but but you won but I am leaving the conversation with a stronger feeling that its not an MMO then when I started? and I might add even more of a negitive view of ubsisoft then when I started?
really ok well congratulations there buddy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It is a win.. simply because you can't debate it... It doesn't have to be an MMO.. In fact we stated a number of times that The developers state it isn't an mmo... but they compare it to them. Publications say its an MMO.. Some players say its an MMO.. some players don't. We don't really have to "prove" anything.
You can't "prove" its not an MMO... you can't even prove its not "just a shooter" like all those other shooters you HAVEN'T played. You told Ubisoft they should keep their traps shut. Perhaps that advice should be equally taken by those that don't play "shooters" nor the games they're talking about? Hmm?
but but but you won but I am leaving the conversation with a stronger feeling that its not an MMO then when I started? and I might add even more of a negitive view of ubsisoft then when I started?
really ok well congratulations there buddy
So basically you're saying nothing changed. You weren't going to play it when you started and you won't play it now. You wouldn't play it if it was just a shooter.. you wouldn't play it if it was an action MMO. You wouldn't play it in a box, you wouldn't play it with a fox. Aside from the easy kill in the dark zone I'm sure people won't be asking for you -- all those shooter fans you're acquainted with undoubtedly.
But thank you for the congratulations I guess.
So basically you're saying nothing changed. You weren't going to play it when you started and you won't play it now. You wouldn't play it if it was just a shooter.. you wouldn't play it if it was an action MMO. You wouldn't play it in a box, you wouldn't play it with a fox. Aside from the easy kill in the dark zone I'm sure people won't be asking for you -- all those shooter fans you're acquainted with undoubtedly.
But thank you for the congratulations I guess.
no something has changed as I stated twice.
when I started i didnt know if it was an MMO or not because I didnt know enough about it. With your help in explaining it I am not more sure then I was when I started that its not an MMO and my view of ubisoft is more negitive then it was when I started.
and yeah in addition to that I am still not playing....I know what you are thinking on that last comment I just said,...dont do it. think 'aggregate'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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
and what is the problem even if there is a difference?
Video games are much faster than a tabletop game, can be played solo, and the audience is much much bigger.
So what if crpg is much more combat focused than tabletop RPGs. There is no reason it has to keep everything the same. It is basically a different kind of entertainment, inspired by tabletop RPGs (which are inspired by tabletop war games).
Sure, if a genre is fun then it doesn't matter if it's accurately "bastardized" or not.
But in this case there isn't even an argument that videogame RPGs "bastardized" the focus of tabletop RPGs, since they have a very smilar focus.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
and what is the problem even if there is a difference?
Video games are much faster than a tabletop game, can be played solo, and the audience is much much bigger.
So what if crpg is much more combat focused than tabletop RPGs. There is no reason it has to keep everything the same. It is basically a different kind of entertainment, inspired by tabletop RPGs (which are inspired by tabletop war games).
Sure, if a genre is fun then it doesn't matter if it's accurately "bastardized" or not.
But in this case there isn't even an argument that videogame RPGs "bastardized" the focus of tabletop RPGs, since they have a very smilar focus.
ok this is getting off topic and part of it is my fault but i did mention that I just wanted to make a view point and not turn it into a topic.
That said, to help understand the idea of the orginal RPG here is a challenge that might blow your mind.
The original platform of an RPG completely allowed for the creation of an RPG that contains ZERO combat of any kind whatsoever. Its just stats applied to a character, just because the gaming industry is soo attracted to violence like a tween boy is to porn doesnt mean its designed only for combat.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
First time I've ever seen Narius have one of his own threads snatched right out of his hands, bravo folks.
don't mind that at all .. i am more than happy to talk about RPGs and combat too. I am not those uptight people who would cry bloody murder if the topic digress a bit, or there are opinions i do not agree with.
ok this is getting off topic and part of it is my fault but i did mention that I just wanted to make a view point and not turn it into a topic.
That said, to help understand the idea of the orginal RPG here is a challenge that might blow your mind.
The original platform of an RPG completely allowed for the creation of an RPG that contains ZERO combat of any kind whatsoever. Its just stats applied to a character, just because the gaming industry is soo attracted to violence like a tween boy is to porn doesnt mean its designed only for combat.
Eh, the main thread here doesn't really set the tone for a good persistent conversation, so I've always been fine with things going off-topic in these sorts of threads.
Forums exist for conversation, after all. When people get caught up in being "on-topic nazis", there's definitely something lost and now everyone has to worry about whether what they're saying is directly related to the topic or not. Which again, is fine when the topic itself provides a rich conversation, but in this case it doesn't and off-topic conversations feel appropriate.
In terms of RPGs, sure the platform allowed for that. But that wasn't the reality in ~99% (videogame) or ~80% (tabletop) of RPGs. That wasn't the actual experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
ok this is getting off topic and part of it is my fault but i did mention that I just wanted to make a view point and not turn it into a topic.
That said, to help understand the idea of the orginal RPG here is a challenge that might blow your mind.
The original platform of an RPG completely allowed for the creation of an RPG that contains ZERO combat of any kind whatsoever. Its just stats applied to a character, just because the gaming industry is soo attracted to violence like a tween boy is to porn doesnt mean its designed only for combat.
Eh, the main thread here doesn't really set the tone for a good persistent conversation, so I've always been fine with things going off-topic in these sorts of threads.
Forums exist for conversation, after all. When people get caught up in being "on-topic nazis", there's definitely something lost and now everyone has to worry about whether what they're saying is directly related to the topic or not. Which again, is fine when the topic itself provides a rich conversation, but in this case it doesn't and off-topic conversations feel appropriate.
In terms of RPGs, sure the platform allowed for that. But that wasn't the reality in ~99% (videogame) or ~80% (tabletop) of RPGs. That wasn't the actual experience.
yes I agree and more over RPG comes from table top war games so there is that
That said, everytime I see such limited descriptions of what an RPG is it makes me frustrated and sad. I wish more people would see The Sims as a form of RPG. I think we can could really move gaming to amazing levels if we stopped thinking inside a tiny little box filled with swords and combat as if that is the only thing Gary Gygax brought us
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I take some of what I said back. Its NOT ok to use combat in the definition just because its widly used.
Because it implies that without combat its not an RPG. Inclusion of the statement is not a problem but the exclusion that they statement implies IS a problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
ok this is getting off topic and part of it is my fault but i did mention that I just wanted to make a view point and not turn it into a topic.
That said, to help understand the idea of the orginal RPG here is a challenge that might blow your mind.
The original platform of an RPG completely allowed for the creation of an RPG that contains ZERO combat of any kind whatsoever. Its just stats applied to a character, just because the gaming industry is soo attracted to violence like a tween boy is to porn doesnt mean its designed only for combat.
Eh, the main thread here doesn't really set the tone for a good persistent conversation, so I've always been fine with things going off-topic in these sorts of threads.
Forums exist for conversation, after all. When people get caught up in being "on-topic nazis", there's definitely something lost and now everyone has to worry about whether what they're saying is directly related to the topic or not. Which again, is fine when the topic itself provides a rich conversation, but in this case it doesn't and off-topic conversations feel appropriate.
In terms of RPGs, sure the platform allowed for that. But that wasn't the reality in ~99% (videogame) or ~80% (tabletop) of RPGs. That wasn't the actual experience.
yes I agree and more over RPG comes from table top war games so there is that
That said, everytime I see such limited descriptions of what an RPG is it makes me frustrated and sad. I wish more people would see The Sims as a form of RPG. I think we can could really move gaming to amazing levels if we stopped thinking inside a tiny little box filled with swords and combat as if that is the only thing Gary Gygax brought us
Sims is an RPG. I do wish someone did a more adult Sims and took the game off rails. Having kids and adult storyline for your work days. My view probably would have some violence and drama lol.
Also if your into basketball NBA2K series has a nice grinding RPG mode and online mode. Don't like this year's Spike Lee version though.
I take some of what I said back. Its NOT ok to use combat in the definition just because its widly used.
Because it implies that without combat its not an RPG. Inclusion of the statement is not a problem but the exclusion that they statement implies IS a problem
It's not merely "widely used". It's nigh-universal.
The number of non-combat videogame RPGs which have ever existed might not exceed 10 total games. I can think of only one (Harvest Moon) and its related sequels (and I think one inspired-by spinoff?)
But I'm not really defining RPGs so much as describing their core pillars.
And in the context I described them it would've been ridiculous verbose to try to account for those less-than-10 games which weren't relevant enough to warrant mention.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
yes I agree and more over RPG comes from table top war games so there is that
That said, everytime I see such limited descriptions of what an RPG is it makes me frustrated and sad. I wish more people would see The Sims as a form of RPG. I think we can could really move gaming to amazing levels if we stopped thinking inside a tiny little box filled with swords and combat as if that is the only thing Gary Gygax brought us
I'd generally agree even though The Sims isn't quite an RPG. "Simulation" is better at describing its core gameplay, and very few stats-related challenges existed in the game. Skills weren't much more (were they anything more?) than prerequisites for jobs, and there was only very loosely a story, and so the majority of the game was solidly simulation-like.
Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that, just that it's weird to want it to be an RPG. Games are going to be categorized alongside similar games, so if something is very different you should expect it to be categorized different. It's sort of pointless to hope that a game is considered one genre or another.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
yes I agree and more over RPG comes from table top war games so there is that
That said, everytime I see such limited descriptions of what an RPG is it makes me frustrated and sad. I wish more people would see The Sims as a form of RPG. I think we can could really move gaming to amazing levels if we stopped thinking inside a tiny little box filled with swords and combat as if that is the only thing Gary Gygax brought us
That is just semantics. Even if people see that the definition of RPG includes non-combat activities, it does not mean that players will LIKE that.
Don't get me wrong, there are non-combat centric games, like SIMS and those music games. But 99% of the games, RPGs or not, are combat centric. Non-combat stuff (like building & crafting in Fallout 4) is at most support to combat gameplay.
It may be sad to you ... but it is great for those who like combat with all the resources and work put into making combat better.
Gary Gygax brought us a lot but no one says we have to like, and use everything he brought us.
Personally, i would much rather games have more interesting combat gameplay like: - mechanics changing gear in D3 - stealth/assassin/take-down mechanics - hacking & control of turrets and NPCs - environmental kills (i love pulling enemies off ledges, for example) - .......
That is why I think Dishonor and Deus Ex are so great with new stealth & combat mechanics. Whether they are RPGs or not ... i don't particularly care.
On the one hand you have the developers that have said multiple things throughout the development cycle. Did they specifically state the game was an MMO? Well, if you count the 2013 reveal and their early interviews... some say they specifically point to it being an MMO.. others they specifically stray from the term MMO..... with caveats.
'In development at Ubisoft Massive, a studio using its own Snowdrop engine, the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 third-person multiplayer shooter aims to serve two genres: the single-player action game, the massively multiplayer online RPG.'
'" '"David Polfeldt, managing director at Massive, says “We wanted a lighter game than [World of Warcraft]. I’m not calling [The Division] an MMO ... We allow you to progress through the skill tree as you refer"
So if you consider that... which is based on the article title....
E3 2013: THE DIVISION: INSIDE THE TOM CLANCY MMO SHOOTER
What are they really conveying here? If you read the story... you would see that it IS an MMO.. but it ISN'T?
Sean is right in the sense that... if Ubisoft didn't want it to be called an MMO, they would correct them. Just about every publication has a spot where it states The Division is an MMO... in a title... in an reference... but the developers are very wary of saying it specifically. Its okay if they publish that it is. That is an issue.
But its not a big issue.
What a label says something is.. doesn't necessarily mean that what you're looking at is specifically that. Ubisoft knew what crowd they were aiming at.... they didn't make an RPG shooter... they didn't make a Multiplayer Online shooter... They opened it up... they made an "open world third person shooter rpg" that "is lighter than World of Warcraft" but ... yet.. if it isn't nearly an MMO why is it in the same sentence?
Its confusing.. because its a hybrid of so many systems.. and hybridization is important here.
But that doesn't touch on the core of what the game actually is... saying its just an MMO will confuse people because its more than that. But saying it isn't an MMO isn't correct either... because in some fashion.. the developers don't want you to think its not. They want to put it in its own classification. GW1 and the CORPG. Its fine..
But lets talk about the features of the game.. and once we hammer those out.. let people determine what the game will be fore themselves.
yes I think this is very much in detail, thanks for the work!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
On the one hand you have the developers that have said multiple things throughout the development cycle. Did they specifically state the game was an MMO? Well, if you count the 2013 reveal and their early interviews... some say they specifically point to it being an MMO.. others they specifically stray from the term MMO..... with caveats.
'In development at Ubisoft Massive, a studio using its own Snowdrop engine, the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 third-person multiplayer shooter aims to serve two genres: the single-player action game, the massively multiplayer online RPG.'
'" '"David Polfeldt, managing director at Massive, says “We wanted a lighter game than [World of Warcraft]. I’m not calling [The Division] an MMO ... We allow you to progress through the skill tree as you refer"
So if you consider that... which is based on the article title....
E3 2013: THE DIVISION: INSIDE THE TOM CLANCY MMO SHOOTER
What are they really conveying here? If you read the story... you would see that it IS an MMO.. but it ISN'T?
Sean is right in the sense that... if Ubisoft didn't want it to be called an MMO, they would correct them. Just about every publication has a spot where it states The Division is an MMO... in a title... in an reference... but the developers are very wary of saying it specifically. Its okay if they publish that it is. That is an issue.
But its not a big issue.
What a label says something is.. doesn't necessarily mean that what you're looking at is specifically that. Ubisoft knew what crowd they were aiming at.... they didn't make an RPG shooter... they didn't make a Multiplayer Online shooter... They opened it up... they made an "open world third person shooter rpg" that "is lighter than World of Warcraft" but ... yet.. if it isn't nearly an MMO why is it in the same sentence?
Its confusing.. because its a hybrid of so many systems.. and hybridization is important here.
But that doesn't touch on the core of what the game actually is... saying its just an MMO will confuse people because its more than that. But saying it isn't an MMO isn't correct either... because in some fashion.. the developers don't want you to think its not. They want to put it in its own classification. GW1 and the CORPG. Its fine..
But lets talk about the features of the game.. and once we hammer those out.. let people determine what the game will be fore themselves.
yes I think this is very much in detail, thanks for the work!
as if whether it is a mmo or not will impact its success. Players want good games, not good narrowly-defined-MMOs.
It's not an mmo. You'll never see hundreds of players at one time in the game ever. It offers absolutely no massively multiplayer gameplay at all. And if you disagree, well too bad. Mmo is defined. It has nothing to do with persistence, grouping, questing, leveling or role playing.
Mmo was first used to describe Ultima online. That game had at least 500+ people in an area at one time when I was playing. It was used to separate it from standard multiplayer games. So, using UO, the game that literally defined the genre as a player quantity base point, it's pretty safe to say an mmo requires hundreds of players to qualify as massive. As technology moves forward our definition of massive is supposed to grow bigger, not smaller. Calling 30 to 100 player games massive is just ridiculous.
UO wasn't the first MMO though, and many MMOs these days don't muster more than 50 players in any one place at one time, even hub based ones. Sorry to break it to you, but your idea of what an MMO is, is not even antiquated.. it just ... never was. There are games that utilize much fewer players in a much larger space that are on the list as an MMO.... and just go through MMORPG.coms list of games... the division deserves to be here much more than many of the others.
UO was not the first mmo, but it is the game that literally defined mmo.
Hate ts to break it to you, but many mmos have hundreds of people in an area. And just because people don't happen to be in that area at that time doesn't make it an mmo.
Also, the game list on this site is not an mmorpg game list. It is just a list of games that the community enjoys. I see problem with the division being added to the games list along with the other non mmo games.
and my idea of mmo s correct... You're a newbie to mmo obviously. Listen to those of us who are trying to educate you instead of telling those with experience what's going on. You look like an ass.
Comments
Video games are much faster than a tabletop game, can be played solo, and the audience is much much bigger.
So what if crpg is much more combat focused than tabletop RPGs. There is no reason it has to keep everything the same. It is basically a different kind of entertainment, inspired by tabletop RPGs (which are inspired by tabletop war games).
I will leave you all with this though, wikipedia explaination of an MMO.
Sorry nobody could provide an example that clearly hit it out of the park for me.
later all (that doesnt mean I will not come back but it does mean I have rapidly lost intrest in this debate)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Its easier to just leave the thread rather than get proven wrong over and over again. Even after I showed over 100 players were possible in the division.. even after people that played the actual game gave you differences..
it was best you bowed out than be proved wrong. We understand.
I am also looking on the internet for anything related to 'in what way is The Divsion and MMo' and I am not finding anythign other than debates.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Is GW1 an MMO? I think at this point in time the majority of people have shifted from thinking it was a CRPG to believing it to be an MMO although one that is highly instanced and lobby based. The Division basically operates the same as GW1. Therefore, it is an MMO. For a more recent example see Skyforge.
I mean you've got to have your head in the sand to say it's the same as CoD, BF, CSGO, etc. or a standard multiplayer shooter.
This is really just arguing semantics and Ubisoft doesn't want it to be labeled an MMO anyway. That way they can stop supporting it in a year and sell consumers The Division 2. MMO is a bad label to put on your games these days which is why most companies are avoiding it and happy to support your claims that these are not MMO's which would require actually supporting the community and developing ongoing long term content.
As an aside I would argue that the definition of MMO on Wikipedia is outdated as it has changed a lot with the times. Requiring everyone to be in the same instance would toss a lot of legit MMO's out the window.
Steam: Neph
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can't "prove" its not an MMO... you can't even prove its not "just a shooter" like all those other shooters you HAVEN'T played. You told Ubisoft they should keep their traps shut. Perhaps that advice should be equally taken by those that don't play "shooters" nor the games they're talking about? Hmm?
really ok well congratulations there buddy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
when I started i didnt know if it was an MMO or not because I didnt know enough about it. With your help in explaining it I am not more sure then I was when I started that its not an MMO and my view of ubisoft is more negitive then it was when I started.
and yeah in addition to that I am still not playing....I know what you are thinking on that last comment I just said,...dont do it. think 'aggregate'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
But in this case there isn't even an argument that videogame RPGs "bastardized" the focus of tabletop RPGs, since they have a very smilar focus.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That said, to help understand the idea of the orginal RPG here is a challenge that might blow your mind.
The original platform of an RPG completely allowed for the creation of an RPG that contains ZERO combat of any kind whatsoever. Its just stats applied to a character, just because the gaming industry is soo attracted to violence like a tween boy is to porn doesnt mean its designed only for combat.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Forums exist for conversation, after all. When people get caught up in being "on-topic nazis", there's definitely something lost and now everyone has to worry about whether what they're saying is directly related to the topic or not. Which again, is fine when the topic itself provides a rich conversation, but in this case it doesn't and off-topic conversations feel appropriate.
In terms of RPGs, sure the platform allowed for that. But that wasn't the reality in ~99% (videogame) or ~80% (tabletop) of RPGs. That wasn't the actual experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That said, everytime I see such limited descriptions of what an RPG is it makes me frustrated and sad. I wish more people would see The Sims as a form of RPG. I think we can could really move gaming to amazing levels if we stopped thinking inside a tiny little box filled with swords and combat as if that is the only thing Gary Gygax brought us
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Because it implies that without combat its not an RPG. Inclusion of the statement is not a problem but the exclusion that they statement implies IS a problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also if your into basketball NBA2K series has a nice grinding RPG mode and online mode. Don't like this year's Spike Lee version though.
The number of non-combat videogame RPGs which have ever existed might not exceed 10 total games. I can think of only one (Harvest Moon) and its related sequels (and I think one inspired-by spinoff?)
But I'm not really defining RPGs so much as describing their core pillars.
And in the context I described them it would've been ridiculous verbose to try to account for those less-than-10 games which weren't relevant enough to warrant mention.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'd generally agree even though The Sims isn't quite an RPG. "Simulation" is better at describing its core gameplay, and very few stats-related challenges existed in the game. Skills weren't much more (were they anything more?) than prerequisites for jobs, and there was only very loosely a story, and so the majority of the game was solidly simulation-like.
Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that, just that it's weird to want it to be an RPG. Games are going to be categorized alongside similar games, so if something is very different you should expect it to be categorized different. It's sort of pointless to hope that a game is considered one genre or another.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Don't get me wrong, there are non-combat centric games, like SIMS and those music games. But 99% of the games, RPGs or not, are combat centric. Non-combat stuff (like building & crafting in Fallout 4) is at most support to combat gameplay.
It may be sad to you ... but it is great for those who like combat with all the resources and work put into making combat better.
Gary Gygax brought us a lot but no one says we have to like, and use everything he brought us.
Personally, i would much rather games have more interesting combat gameplay like:
- mechanics changing gear in D3
- stealth/assassin/take-down mechanics
- hacking & control of turrets and NPCs
- environmental kills (i love pulling enemies off ledges, for example)
- .......
That is why I think Dishonor and Deus Ex are so great with new stealth & combat mechanics. Whether they are RPGs or not ... i don't particularly care.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Hate ts to break it to you, but many mmos have hundreds of people in an area. And just because people don't happen to be in that area at that time doesn't make it an mmo.
Also, the game list on this site is not an mmorpg game list. It is just a list of games that the community enjoys. I see problem with the division being added to the games list along with the other non mmo games.
and my idea of mmo s correct... You're a newbie to mmo obviously. Listen to those of us who are trying to educate you instead of telling those with experience what's going on. You look like an ass.