Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
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
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
I would offer that there are a lot of people who probably don't care.
Oh sure, maybe traditional mmorpg players might care, but as I've mentioned before, the two times I attended a PAX for Elder Scrolls Online I tried to have conversations with people who were also waiting in that 2 hour line about other MMORPG's. Most of them knew World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic and that was it. Oh yeah, one guy was an old Dark Age of Camelot player.
I bet those people who were not avid MMORPG players but who were interested in Elder Scrolls Online might not really care.
Others have offered that MMORPG players, "real" MMORPG players (not including World of Warcraft) were always a minority. That may or may not be true. However, if it is true and that minority is against the use of the acronym for any other game but a specific type of game, does it matter if everyone else just takes it to another place? Probably not.
Words/definitions don't change because a committee got together and made a decision. They change because people just start using them in a different way. Maybe it's ignorance or maybe the old definition doesn't really have a lot of weight anymore or maybe it's just a simple mistake.
It doesn't matter. It will change to whatever is the most expedient, easiest use and that's what's going to happen. People can rail all they want but I don't think it's going to change anything.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
I suppose if you can fit a "massive" of exceptional number of players inside an instance together then it would debatably be an MMO. That would need to be a much greater number of players than your average MOBA though.
Massive = "exceptionally large"
Exceptional = Unusual. In statistics an exceptionally large number means in the top 5%.
So games that are pretty average in their capability of hosting simultaneous clients in the same world (10 - 20 players at a time) would fall outside the definition of exceptional, therefore outside the definition of massive, and therefore outside the definition of MMO/MMORPG.
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
I'd personally call ESO an mmorpg but it is also a victim of what destroyed the genre.
The distinction of why instancing is used is an important one. Is instancing driven by tech limitations or by monetizing content?
ESO suffers from both which is why many Skyrim and earlier TES game players still feel let down by ESO. Each main zone can be sharded because the engine cannot support a very large player number and it has one of the worst draw distances in the industry. Sadly this tech is also the main tool for f2p monitization and ESO exploits the shit out of it.
Now we see each large zone content expansion scaling to all levels so every single player in the game can access all content regardless of ability and power of the character. Does this make sense in any fantasy world in any genre? Hell no. It is entirely a tool to maximize player participation within all content in order to increase F2P metrics for earnings.
TES was an exploration game up until ESO came along and now everyone scales to all content. Crossing the line between game concept and monetizing content is where the division between what a mmorpg vs mmo begins. This is often instancing but we now also see cash shop selling of items, houses and ships in games where crafting and economic mechanics exist for purchase of them. Fundamental elements of why mmorpgs even existed are being compromised so at what point do we say a mmorpg stops being one?
Languages, even its first itterations, have always been dynamic, not static. Take any Uni language/culture class and you would know. The discussion has already been had and that was the universal outcome. It changes from generation to generation, I remember when I was young my parents used to tell me all the time that I was using a word 'wrong,' because back in their day it had a different meaning.
These days almost every game has an online component, and single vs multi and online vs offline aren't that black and white anymore. Where one term ends and the other begins is decided by the majority of its users by how they use it. It is the ultimate form of democracy, too bad the majority of the people are quite dumb. I could name a president or two who's election outcomes are perfect examples of that
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I fully understand and accept that language is ever evolving and changing with each generation. That is not the issue here. The issue is that far too often you have games from completely different genres being given the same label. A fully instanced game like Kritika Online and a fully open world game like BDO are (to me) totally different genres, and yet they are both given the label of "mmorpg".
Let me try and explain my frustration to you and maybe you'll understand. I have been looking for a new mmorpg to get into for a long time. I went through all the major subscription and p2p mmorpgs I could before moving onto the f2p ones. Now as I've said previously I hate fully instanced games like Kritika and I'm only interested in playing open world games that I can explore and meet other people while I do it.
So during my search I see a game called "Skyforge" that claims to be an mmorpg. I look at the website and it says nothing about it being a fully instanced game. In fact, it says the following on their website: "Only a true God can defend Aelion against invaders, raging immortals and countless other dangers. Select the activity; PvP, PvE, group or solo, open world play, short instance or large raid to your liking and immediately set off to protect your people!"
Where is this open world they speak of? It doesn't exist because it's all instanced. And of course, I don't know this until I've spent hours downloading, installing and patching the game to play it. How am I supposed to make an informed decision on what game to pick with so much misrepresentation? I don't even care what label you give it. Call one genre the "cows" and the other the "pigs" for all I care, just give me some way of distinguishing them before I actually play them! As consumers we have a right to know before-hand what kind of game we are playing. How about one more example for you. Some people prefer first person shooters, others prefer third person shooters. Imagine how hard it would be to find a game you liked if they were all grouped and labelled as just "shooter".
No, I get it, I understand the frustration. But in reality the majority of people using these words actually DO think that Kritika, Skyforge, WoW etc. etc. are ALL in the same category. it didn't start with people forcing these words and genres on others, it GREW that way because the majority used it that way.
It does not matter how you, or I for that matter, feel about the issue, it is how language works. Your comparison with third and first person is mood btw, these are specific features you can clearly judge something upon. But when is instanced too instanced? When is massively actually massively and when are these people actually together? Is it a chat channel, a lobby, an actual world? Your thoughts about that differ from others, you can't argue if something is or isn't first person.
And in your specific case (which I fully understand and sympathize with btw), check online, do more research on a specific game. Not from store pages but from forums, specify more to find those features you are looking for.
/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
So I think that the general problem isn't, necessarily, with the definition, but that some of those major elements are now becoming staples in games.
Based on the OP the common elements in all the definitions he came across were: 1. A persistent game world
2. The ability to interact with thousands of different players.
First of all, what's a persistent game world? This characterizes most games. Even a game like Destiny could be classified as having a persistent world, since events are actually happening while players are offline. So Destiny would meet that requirement.
Secondly, I would challenge you to find a game that allows you to interact with thousands of people. Maybe we might say gives you the possibility of interacting with thousands of players. I actually prefer the idea of "hundreds" of players playing simultaneously, since that's much more realistic. HOWEVER, if we say hundreds then we re-open the question of what does that mean? hundreds in a single map? If we're talking hundreds of people in a persistent world at once, then Destiny would also qualify in that case since I think they allow 16 people per map. Destiny has some 6 or 7 planets, right? How many maps per planet? Does it just count as one? If not then we're easily getting into hundreds of people. We can never converge in a single location though, so I think that kinda excludes it.
HOWEVER! There are plenty of completely legitimate MMORPGs which probably have fewer people than Destiny congregating in any given area. So I think that's a pretty big differentiatoin, it really does need to be the ability to support hundreds of people in a single location.
Anyway, we've also seen that it seems every game has RPG elements now, so don't even get me started on that.
The point is that you want something that's very clean cut, but there are so many games focused on creating open world RPGs with multiplayer support that you simply need to do a better job researching and looking for elements you want in an MMORPG. Otherwise, you're almost guaranteed to be disappointed.
I find this argument needlessly muddies the waters.
"First of all, what's a persistent game world? This characterizes most games".
No, it doesn't. A persistent game world has a very specific meaning; as Richard Bartle put it: a world that "continues to exist and develop internally even when there are no people interacting with it". When I turn off Dwarf Fortress, the world temporarily ceases to exist: it is frozen in a given state in a save file on my computer. When I turn off Vendetta Online, the game world will be in a different state when I come back to it as it will continue to evolve even when I am not playing: it is "persistent". Market prices may be different, battles will have been won or lost, player alliances and the political landscape may have changed (note that Bartle's definition doesn't rely on other players). Simply put, if the game state continues to change whether or not I'm playing, it's probably a persistent world.
"HOWEVER, if we say hundreds then we re-open the question of what does that mean?"
I get where you are coming from, but I see no reason to make this complicated; I take it to mean the number of avatars that can physically congregate in a given area. There are all different kinds of ways to slice this question, and a lot of it will depend on how the game is designed (what about a text-MUD, for example?), but I generally take it to mean the number of avatars I could potentially see on my screen once you take away the UI. I'm not talking about the world's biggest group-hug in Stormwind just for the sake of it; I'm talking about the fact that some games by design will never let you see more than a handful of players/avatars when you are actually playing the game, and delineating between this and a MMORPG.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I'd personally call ESO an mmorpg but it is also a victim of what destroyed the genre.
The distinction of why instancing is used is an important one. Is instancing driven by tech limitations or by monetizing content?
ESO suffers from both which is why many Skyrim and earlier TES game players still feel let down by ESO. Each main zone can be sharded because the engine cannot support a very large player number and it has one of the worst draw distances in the industry. Sadly this tech is also the main tool for f2p monitization and ESO exploits the shit out of it.
Now we see each large zone content expansion scaling to all levels so every single player in the game can access all content regardless of ability and power of the character. Does this make sense in any fantasy world in any genre? Hell no. It is entirely a tool to maximize player participation within all content in order to increase F2P metrics for earnings.
TES was an exploration game up until ESO came along and now everyone scales to all content. Crossing the line between game concept and monetizing content is where the division between what a mmorpg vs mmo begins. This is often instancing but we now also see cash shop selling of items, houses and ships in games where crafting and economic mechanics exist for purchase of them. Fundamental elements of why mmorpgs even existed are being compromised so at what point do we say a mmorpg stops being one?
Two points, ESO can handle a lot of players in one area, much more than something like SWTOR ( as an example) just look at Cyrodil. The world layout seems more stemmed from handmaid locations in the base game (handmade worlds take more resources to render, than generated stuff), as well as phasing for quest outcomes.
Secondly, scaling content has been a part of TES since Oblivion. All content (the entire world) scales to your level, so it's not really out of place in ESO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Languages, even its first itterations, have always been dynamic, not static. Take any Uni language/culture class and you would know. The discussion has already been had and that was the universal outcome. It changes from generation to generation, I remember when I was young my parents used to tell me all the time that I was using a word 'wrong,' because back in their day it had a different meaning.
These days almost every game has an online component, and single vs multi and online vs offline aren't that black and white anymore. Where one term ends and the other begins is decided by the majority of its users by how they use it. It is the ultimate form of democracy, too bad the majority of the people are quite dumb. I could name a president or two who's election outcomes are perfect examples of that
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I fully understand and accept that language is ever evolving and changing with each generation. That is not the issue here. The issue is that far too often you have games from completely different genres being given the same label. A fully instanced game like Kritika Online and a fully open world game like BDO are (to me) totally different genres, and yet they are both given the label of "mmorpg".
Let me try and explain my frustration to you and maybe you'll understand. I have been looking for a new mmorpg to get into for a long time. I went through all the major subscription and p2p mmorpgs I could before moving onto the f2p ones. Now as I've said previously I hate fully instanced games like Kritika and I'm only interested in playing open world games that I can explore and meet other people while I do it.
So during my search I see a game called "Skyforge" that claims to be an mmorpg. I look at the website and it says nothing about it being a fully instanced game. In fact, it says the following on their website: "Only a true God can defend Aelion against invaders, raging immortals and countless other dangers. Select the activity; PvP, PvE, group or solo, open world play, short instance or large raid to your liking and immediately set off to protect your people!"
Where is this open world they speak of? It doesn't exist because it's all instanced. And of course, I don't know this until I've spent hours downloading, installing and patching the game to play it. How am I supposed to make an informed decision on what game to pick with so much misrepresentation? I don't even care what label you give it. Call one genre the "cows" and the other the "pigs" for all I care, just give me some way of distinguishing them before I actually play them! As consumers we have a right to know before-hand what kind of game we are playing. How about one more example for you. Some people prefer first person shooters, others prefer third person shooters. Imagine how hard it would be to find a game you liked if they were all grouped and labelled as just "shooter".
No, I get it, I understand the frustration. But in reality the majority of people using these words actually DO think that Kritika, Skyforge, WoW etc. etc. are ALL in the same category. it didn't start with people forcing these words and genres on others, it GREW that way because the majority used it that way.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Have to blame my mother, whenever I tried to argue 'everyone else was doing something' (growing their hair long, wearing ratty jeans or whatever was popular) she always said "Kyle, if everyone else jumps off a bridge it doesn't mean you have to."
So in her memory I will continue to resist the ignorant masses and lead them back into enlightenment.
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
I'd like to start calling these hybrid games "Awesome-ORPGs". It's the same number of syllables.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Midnight-ShadowWorld of Warcraft CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 88
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
To an extent yes. When your game is entirely made up of instances and hub towns that don't change when you are offline then it ceases to be an mmo. There is a difference between an open world game with instances in it, and a game that is nothing but instances.
The issue with the "new" definition of the term is that it renders it's meaning inconsistent with itself. That would be okay if the entire point of the group of words it belongs to wasn't to separate and classify items in a consistent manner.
An inconsistently applied descriptive term is useless.
That's not really true.
Let's look at the words:
Massive/Massively - that doesn't necessarily mean a lot of people in the same space at once by the definition of the word. It does mean that "something is Massive/Massively. What would/could that be? Well, that would be the people ...
Multiplayer - You can have more than one person playing at once. And while historically that meant in the same space, you find that these new games are using "massive" for the amount of people who have access to the game and can play with other people.
Online - it has to be online
Role Playing Game - that's its own can of worms as people have different definitions for what that entails. Usually progression.
So one could look at, say, Destiny and think "well a massive amount of people can access the game, we can play multiplayer with any subset of those people and we do it online.
AS far as the RPG - more games are including some sort of progression so that very well might be why some people look at these games as role playing games.
As far as the joke that was made above about Pong, I could imagine (though I doubt it would happen) an online version of pong where millions (again wouldn't happen and it's a shame I have to put the qualifier) access Pong, you can be matched with any one of those millions, there are leaderboards, etc. Make it so there is some sort of progression (which would mean a redesign of the game but this is for argument's sake) and there you have it, a future mmorpg.
It's not how "we" (the people who started with early mmorpg's would ever classify it, but keep broadening what massively means and just adopt the idea that multiplayer is any number from 2 to millions and you have the evolution of a term.
That's not MMO, we already have a term for that. It's multiplayer.
And as another poster reiterated by using the CoD example: the definition isn't even consistent within itself. If multiplayer Pong and Hearthstone are MMORPGs, where's the coverage here for the CoD franchise? Battlefield? Ghost Recon titles? Halo Wars 2? Grey Goo?
Hell, The Last of Us is an MMORPG if Hearthstone is. Yes, that's right, The Last of Us had multiplayer with level progression and even equipment with a per match currency system that had you earning points to buy better equipment as the match went on. Sound familiar? It's a common MOBA trope we've all either experienced first-hand or read about by now. So where was the coverage on these sites for the "new MMORPG, The Last of Us"??
Nothing about this "new" definition actually defines anything unique. The new definition is literally just another name for "multiplayer," which is bananas redundant at best, just an inconsistent marketing perversion of the acronym at worst.
Words do change over time. However instanced games neither line up with the definition of MMORPG (Or even MMO) nor do they seem to be a commonly accepted usage of the term by gamers.
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
Exactly the issue of misusing the term.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
I suppose if you can fit a "massive" of exceptional number of players inside an instance together then it would debatably be an MMO. That would need to be a much greater number of players than your average MOBA though.
Massive = "exceptionally large"
Exceptional = Unusual. In statistics an exceptionally large number means in the top 5%.
So games that are pretty average in their capability of hosting simultaneous clients in the same world (10 - 20 players at a time) would fall outside the definition of exceptional, therefore outside the definition of massive, and therefore outside the definition of MMO/MMORPG.
I am sorry but this is just a ' feelings versus facts' issue.
The facts are that the language changed to reflect the changes in the real world, this is because the majority of its users used it that way. I did not make this up, this is how language works.
Your feelings are that this is wrong and these games should fall outside the (your) definition of MMO/MMORPG. But they are nothing more then that, feelings. And I'll say it again, no matter how you disagree, language bends to the majority of its users and changes to reflect how they feel/speak/use it.
/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
Tamanous said: Now we see each large zone content expansion scaling to all levels so every single player in the game can access all content regardless of ability and power of the character. Does this make sense in any fantasy world in any genre? Hell no. It is entirely a tool to maximize player participation within all content in order to increase F2P metrics for earnings.
Excuse me? That makes perfect sense for any fantasy world because levels are a construct of the old PnP games and have nothing to do with any setting fantasy or otherwise. Its a great idea for making a fun game where you can actually play with any friends you have/make, and as such is a perfect match for any kind of monetization.
I am sorry but this is just a ' feelings versus facts' issue.
The facts are that the language changed to reflect the changes in the real world, this is because the majority of its users used it that way. I did not make this up, this is how language works.
Your feelings are that this is wrong and these games should fall outside the (your) definition of MMO/MMORPG. But they are nothing more then that, feelings. And I'll say it again, no matter how you disagree, language bends to the majority of its users and changes to reflect how they feel/speak/use it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
You're right. It's your feelings vs. my facts.
You can feel however you want but you can't make the word "massive" mean something it doesn't. The numbers of players found in your average MOBA are not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore they are not, and never can be "massive" disqualifying them from being "massively multiplayer."
I am sorry but this is just a ' feelings versus facts' issue.
The facts are that the language changed to reflect the changes in the real world, this is because the majority of its users used it that way. I did not make this up, this is how language works.
Your feelings are that this is wrong and these games should fall outside the (your) definition of MMO/MMORPG. But they are nothing more then that, feelings. And I'll say it again, no matter how you disagree, language bends to the majority of its users and changes to reflect how they feel/speak/use it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
You're right. It's your feelings vs. my facts.
You can fe el however you want but you can't make the word "massive" mean something it doesn't. The numbers of players found in your average MOBA are not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore they are not, and never can be "massive" disqualifying them from being "massively multiplayer."
I never said a MOBA is an MMO, contrary to your emotion fueled post you don't even know my stance on the matter, I just tell you how language works, factually.
A MOBA is not massive. But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable.
So far you haven't presented facts, don't accuse me of doing the same. Things aren't as black and white as you present them.
/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
"...But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
Got it. So you want to argue semantics and twist words. I don't. MOBA doesn't exclusively apply to a single match. It applies to global chat channels, guilds, the community etc. It's a term for the game in it's totality. Match is the word you are searching for if you want to talk about a single instance within the game. _________________________
Where have you presented facts? Can you source them? I see nothing in your posts but your own opinion.
Here are my facts I actually have given and sourced in other topics:
"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."
"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"
Which of those two definitions do you feel a MOBA falls within?
Large communities are typical. Global chat channels are typical. Thousands of players being able to play but being divided into small instances of the game world is typical. MOBAs are in no way exceptional in that regard.
Hundreds or thousands of players being able to inhabit the same area at the same time is exceptionally large or, massive. This is a very rare thing that only a small subclass of games have. That is why we call that subclass of games massively multiplayer.
Marketing weasels lie or otherwise misrepresent stuff all the time, it's their stock and trade. After have to deal with those in the same company I worked at for a long time, I don't think they even know how to tell the truth.
Then there's the gullible noobs that go with what the weasels say and don't bother to even suspect they've been lied to. Educate them nicely. That's about all you can do.
Sure, language changes all the time, but it's a relatively sedate pace with only occasional sudden jumps. These cases of marketing weasels pulling the wool over the influx of beginners is like an instant tidal wave of misinformation and marketing lies, and should be resisted. It's not a normal language shift, it's an accelerated alteration and dilution of our lexicon for the purposes of selling misrepresented products.
"...But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
Got it. So you want to argue semantics and twist words. I don't. MOBA doesn't exclusively apply to a single match. It applies to global chat channels, guilds, the community etc. It's a term for the game in it's totality. Match is the word you are searching for if you want to talk about a single instance within the game. _________________________
Where have you presented facts? Can you source them? I see nothing in your posts but your own opinion.
Here are my facts I actually have given and sourced in other topics:
"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."
"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"
Which of those two definitions do you feel a MOBA falls within?
Large communities are typical. Global chat channels are typical. Thousands of players being able to play but being divided into small instances of the game world is typical. MOBAs are in no way exceptional in that regard.
Hundreds or thousands of players being able to inhabit the same area at the same time is exceptionally large or, massive. This is a very rare thing that only a small subclass of games have. That is why we call that subclass of games massively multiplayer.
.... You don't get it. You keep acting like what I post is my opinion. Funnily enough my opinion is that I agree with you. Language wise you can look up dozens of studies about word meaning and static vs dynamic if you want 'my' facts btw.
Also, your posted definition is full of unclarity and debatable points. Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven. Also 'interact with other people' can mean they just chat online, that is interacting too. See? It is not as black and white as you want it to be, it is all semantics, even in your own quote.
You can really drop the hostile tone btw, there is no need for it.
/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
"...But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
Got it. So you want to argue semantics and twist words. I don't. MOBA doesn't exclusively apply to a single match. It applies to global chat channels, guilds, the community etc. It's a term for the game in it's totality. Match is the word you are searching for if you want to talk about a single instance within the game. _________________________
Where have you presented facts? Can you source them? I see nothing in your posts but your own opinion.
Here are my facts I actually have given and sourced in other topics:
"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."
"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"
Which of those two definitions do you feel a MOBA falls within?
Large communities are typical. Global chat channels are typical. Thousands of players being able to play but being divided into small instances of the game world is typical. MOBAs are in no way exceptional in that regard.
Hundreds or thousands of players being able to inhabit the same area at the same time is exceptionally large or, massive. This is a very rare thing that only a small subclass of games have. That is why we call that subclass of games massively multiplayer.
.... You don't get it. You keep acting like what I post is my opinion. Funnily enough my opinion is that I agree with you. Language wise you can look up dozens of studies about word meaning and static vs dynamic if you want 'my' facts btw.
Also, your posted definition is full of unclarity and debatable points. Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven. Also 'interact with other people' can mean they just chat online, that is interacting too. See? It is not as black and white as you want it to be, it is all semantics, even in your own quote.
You can really drop the hostile tone btw, there is no need for it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It is your opinion though? or are you saying something you don't believe, in which case, how weird. And if massively multiplayer was based on peoples ability to chat online while spectating say League of Legends, then every broadcasted football match with commentary, and people do chat online while watching them, would also be classed as being Massively Multiplayer, or for that matter people watching/commenting on a twitch stream. When you start including things that are not part of something, as if they were, then you get false results. Your argument is fatally flawed.
Over time terms for everything evolve. Originally all of that may have been applicable considering the amount of games in the genre were very small. I think currently an MMORPG is defined by what you the player wants it to be defined by. Because corporations will use whatever the hell buzz word they feel like using to sell a product. It might be an MMORPG but they start calling it an ARPG, it might be a lobby FPS but because MMORPG was a buzz word they threw that on there. Who cares what it is called at this point, look at the feature list, and deem whether or not that is your definition of what an MMORPG is. I would consider Guild Wars to be an MMORPG but back in the day that was slander to call it that because it was instanced outside of hubs. My own definition of MMORPG will differ severely from most people, but each individual thinks of it in their own way. Just like opening the sandbox can of worms.
.... You don't get it. You keep acting like what I post is my opinion. Funnily enough my opinion is that I agree with you. Language wise you can look up dozens of studies about word meaning and static vs dynamic if you want 'my' facts btw.
Also, your posted definition is full of unclarity and debatable points. Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven. Also 'interact with other people' can mean they just chat online, that is interacting too. See? It is not as black and white as you want it to be, it is all semantics, even in your own quote.
You can really drop the hostile tone btw, there is no need for it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
If you tell my argument is based on opinion, and your opinion is based on facts, then proceed to ignore my facts and provide me with your opinion presented as though it were a fact, I will take it as hostile and respond in a similar tone.
I always assume what someone posts is their opinion. If you don't want me to do so you might want to include a phrase such as:
"While this isn't my position, some would argue that..."
When you just go out and state something such as:
"But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
It sounds very much like you are trying to say a reasonable argument could be made that a MOBA is an MMO. It cannot. Because the qualities you described are not exceptional.
"Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven."
No I sourced a dictionary page that had two definitions for one word. That means that if any of the definitions fit that the term works. MOBAs are not MMOs because neither definition fits. Sandboxes are an MMO because the 2nd definition does cover sandbox MMOs.
You can see the first definition says "an institution for educating children." But adults can go to school to. Plus school is a verb as well. How can this work? Because as you can see there are three definitions of the word. If a single one applies then it works.
Comments
They are a commonly accepted usage of the term for MMO news sites and data collectors trying to expand the term so they are not shackled to a dying genre (True MMOs.)
If go by the true and accepted definition of what an MMO this industry is struggling bigtime. If you go by the false definition of an MMO and pull MOBAs and Survival Games into the genre then it's larger and stronger than ever before.
If you say the MMO genre is struggling, people counter with games I don't agree are MMOs and the conversation abends at this point.
"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
So then are we saying that instancing is where the line is drawn? So ESO is not an MMORPG?
I think that's at least a very hard-drawn line in the sand, but I also think that it represents a handful of games on this site, too, and that's it, which is probably why the term itself was expanded beyond the original definition in the first place.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Oh sure, maybe traditional mmorpg players might care, but as I've mentioned before, the two times I attended a PAX for Elder Scrolls Online I tried to have conversations with people who were also waiting in that 2 hour line about other MMORPG's. Most of them knew World of Warcraft, Star Wars the Old Republic and that was it. Oh yeah, one guy was an old Dark Age of Camelot player.
I bet those people who were not avid MMORPG players but who were interested in Elder Scrolls Online might not really care.
Others have offered that MMORPG players, "real" MMORPG players (not including World of Warcraft) were always a minority. That may or may not be true. However, if it is true and that minority is against the use of the acronym for any other game but a specific type of game, does it matter if everyone else just takes it to another place? Probably not.
Words/definitions don't change because a committee got together and made a decision. They change because people just start using them in a different way. Maybe it's ignorance or maybe the old definition doesn't really have a lot of weight anymore or maybe it's just a simple mistake.
It doesn't matter. It will change to whatever is the most expedient, easiest use and that's what's going to happen. People can rail all they want but I don't think it's going to change anything.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Massive = "exceptionally large"
Exceptional = Unusual. In statistics an exceptionally large number means in the top 5%.
So games that are pretty average in their capability of hosting simultaneous clients in the same world (10 - 20 players at a time) would fall outside the definition of exceptional, therefore outside the definition of massive, and therefore outside the definition of MMO/MMORPG.
The distinction of why instancing is used is an important one. Is instancing driven by tech limitations or by monetizing content?
ESO suffers from both which is why many Skyrim and earlier TES game players still feel let down by ESO. Each main zone can be sharded because the engine cannot support a very large player number and it has one of the worst draw distances in the industry. Sadly this tech is also the main tool for f2p monitization and ESO exploits the shit out of it.
Now we see each large zone content expansion scaling to all levels so every single player in the game can access all content regardless of ability and power of the character. Does this make sense in any fantasy world in any genre? Hell no. It is entirely a tool to maximize player participation within all content in order to increase F2P metrics for earnings.
TES was an exploration game up until ESO came along and now everyone scales to all content. Crossing the line between game concept and monetizing content is where the division between what a mmorpg vs mmo begins. This is often instancing but we now also see cash shop selling of items, houses and ships in games where crafting and economic mechanics exist for purchase of them. Fundamental elements of why mmorpgs even existed are being compromised so at what point do we say a mmorpg stops being one?
You stay sassy!
It does not matter how you, or I for that matter, feel about the issue, it is how language works. Your comparison with third and first person is mood btw, these are specific features you can clearly judge something upon. But when is instanced too instanced? When is massively actually massively and when are these people actually together? Is it a chat channel, a lobby, an actual world? Your thoughts about that differ from others, you can't argue if something is or isn't first person.
And in your specific case (which I fully understand and sympathize with btw), check online, do more research on a specific game. Not from store pages but from forums, specify more to find those features you are looking for.
/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
"First of all, what's a persistent game world? This characterizes most games".
No, it doesn't. A persistent game world has a very specific meaning; as Richard Bartle put it: a world that "continues to exist and develop internally even when there are no people interacting with it". When I turn off Dwarf Fortress, the world temporarily ceases to exist: it is frozen in a given state in a save file on my computer. When I turn off Vendetta Online, the game world will be in a different state when I come back to it as it will continue to evolve even when I am not playing: it is "persistent". Market prices may be different, battles will have been won or lost, player alliances and the political landscape may have changed (note that Bartle's definition doesn't rely on other players). Simply put, if the game state continues to change whether or not I'm playing, it's probably a persistent world.
"HOWEVER, if we say hundreds then we re-open the question of what does that mean?"
I get where you are coming from, but I see no reason to make this complicated; I take it to mean the number of avatars that can physically congregate in a given area. There are all different kinds of ways to slice this question, and a lot of it will depend on how the game is designed (what about a text-MUD, for example?), but I generally take it to mean the number of avatars I could potentially see on my screen once you take away the UI. I'm not talking about the world's biggest group-hug in Stormwind just for the sake of it; I'm talking about the fact that some games by design will never let you see more than a handful of players/avatars when you are actually playing the game, and delineating between this and a MMORPG.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Secondly, scaling content has been a part of TES since Oblivion. All content (the entire world) scales to your level, so it's not really out of place in ESO.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So in her memory I will continue to resist the ignorant masses and lead them back into enlightenment.
Don't worry, you'll thank me one day.
"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
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
To an extent yes. When your game is entirely made up of instances and hub towns that don't change when you are offline then it ceases to be an mmo. There is a difference between an open world game with instances in it, and a game that is nothing but instances.
And as another poster reiterated by using the CoD example: the definition isn't even consistent within itself. If multiplayer Pong and Hearthstone are MMORPGs, where's the coverage here for the CoD franchise? Battlefield? Ghost Recon titles? Halo Wars 2? Grey Goo?
Hell, The Last of Us is an MMORPG if Hearthstone is. Yes, that's right, The Last of Us had multiplayer with level progression and even equipment with a per match currency system that had you earning points to buy better equipment as the match went on. Sound familiar? It's a common MOBA trope we've all either experienced first-hand or read about by now. So where was the coverage on these sites for the "new MMORPG, The Last of Us"??
Nothing about this "new" definition actually defines anything unique. The new definition is literally just another name for "multiplayer," which is bananas redundant at best, just an inconsistent marketing perversion of the acronym at worst.
The facts are that the language changed to reflect the changes in the real world, this is because the majority of its users used it that way. I did not make this up, this is how language works.
Your feelings are that this is wrong and these games should fall outside the (your) definition of MMO/MMORPG. But they are nothing more then that, feelings. And I'll say it again, no matter how you disagree, language bends to the majority of its users and changes to reflect how they feel/speak/use it.
/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
You can feel however you want but you can't make the word "massive" mean something it doesn't. The numbers of players found in your average MOBA are not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, and therefore they are not, and never can be "massive" disqualifying them from being "massively multiplayer."
A MOBA is not massive. But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable.
So far you haven't presented facts, don't accuse me of doing the same. Things aren't as black and white as you present them.
/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
"...But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
Got it. So you want to argue semantics and twist words. I don't. MOBA doesn't exclusively apply to a single match. It applies to global chat channels, guilds, the community etc. It's a term for the game in it's totality. Match is the word you are searching for if you want to talk about a single instance within the game.
_________________________
Where have you presented facts? Can you source them? I see nothing in your posts but your own opinion.
Here are my facts I actually have given and sourced in other topics:
Definition of MMORPG
"massively multiplayer online role-playing game: any story-driven online video game in which a player, taking on the persona of a character in a virtual or fantasy world, interacts with a large number of other players."
"massive(ly) multiplayer online role-playing game: an internet-based computer game set in a virtual world, which can be played by many people at the same time, each of whom can interact with the others"
Which of those two definitions do you feel a MOBA falls within?
Definition of Massive
"Exceptionally large."
Definition of Exceptional
"unusual; not typical."
_________________________
Large communities are typical. Global chat channels are typical. Thousands of players being able to play but being divided into small instances of the game world is typical. MOBAs are in no way exceptional in that regard.
Hundreds or thousands of players being able to inhabit the same area at the same time is exceptionally large or, massive. This is a very rare thing that only a small subclass of games have. That is why we call that subclass of games massively multiplayer.
Then there's the gullible noobs that go with what the weasels say and don't bother to even suspect they've been lied to. Educate them nicely. That's about all you can do.
Sure, language changes all the time, but it's a relatively sedate pace with only occasional sudden jumps. These cases of marketing weasels pulling the wool over the influx of beginners is like an instant tidal wave of misinformation and marketing lies, and should be resisted. It's not a normal language shift, it's an accelerated alteration and dilution of our lexicon for the purposes of selling misrepresented products.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Also, your posted definition is full of unclarity and debatable points. Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven. Also 'interact with other people' can mean they just chat online, that is interacting too. See? It is not as black and white as you want it to be, it is all semantics, even in your own quote.
You can really drop the hostile tone btw, there is no need for it.
/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
Despite incorrect use, they are still being understood and same applies to terms such as 'MMO' or 'MMORPG', because that is how language works....
And if massively multiplayer was based on peoples ability to chat online while spectating say League of Legends, then every broadcasted football match with commentary, and people do chat online while watching them, would also be classed as being Massively Multiplayer, or for that matter people watching/commenting on a twitch stream.
When you start including things that are not part of something, as if they were, then you get false results. Your argument is fatally flawed.
I always assume what someone posts is their opinion. If you don't want me to do so you might want to include a phrase such as:
"While this isn't my position, some would argue that..."
When you just go out and state something such as:
"But then you ad global chat channels, guilds, match watching online etc. and while a single match still isn't massive the entire package suddenly is debatable."
It sounds very much like you are trying to say a reasonable argument could be made that a MOBA is an MMO. It cannot. Because the qualities you described are not exceptional.
"Just to point out 'story driven,' according to your quoted definition that means sandbox games aren't MMORPGs since they are player driven."
No I sourced a dictionary page that had two definitions for one word. That means that if any of the definitions fit that the term works. MOBAs are not MMOs because neither definition fits. Sandboxes are an MMO because the 2nd definition does cover sandbox MMOs.
Here is a similar situation: "Define School"
You can see the first definition says "an institution for educating children." But adults can go to school to. Plus school is a verb as well. How can this work? Because as you can see there are three definitions of the word. If a single one applies then it works.