Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
(True)MMORPGs needs a new abbreviation
fl0w
Member UncommonPosts: 25
Let me explain what I think an MMORPG is, how I parse its definition:
To me an MMORPG is a virtual world that any player is a guest of. A world where no player is "the hero" by default. It's a playground based on a rule-set specific for that IP.
What is seems like it means to others: A server that allows players to play together. Seriously, most categorize League of Legends and Diablo 3 as MMOs?
So, lets setup a new acronym/abbreviation. I'll register the domain and host a sane discussion forum. Sorry mmorpg.com (actually I'm not) but these boards are dated, slow and clumsy.
Comments
Mmo rpg - games on pc's consoles or mobile devices with more than I person
i perfer simplicity. I think there are too many flags titles and names etc used today to seperate us.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin
I dunno about more than 1 person; you ignore the word massively in MMO.
The problem isn't needing a new acronym. Thieves and liars will simply steal whatever becomes popular again in order to trick people into purchasing something that isn't what they think it is.
An MMO, by original definition, is a game where the player logs into a living breathing "World Server" where thousands of players play on at the same time as each other.
Diablo is not an MMO of any sort, it is an Action RPG. Just because it has multiplayer elements does NOT make an MMO. Just because thousands play the game at the same time doesn't mean it is an MMO. There has to be a world-server for everyone to be playing on without instancing etc.
Diablo III is as far from an "MMO" as you can get.
Again, the problem isn't that we need a new Acronym. The problem is media outlets, like MMORPG.com, that allow companies to lie about their products in order to sell them. No one is calling these companies accountable for lieing.
MMO is fine and dandy for its purpose, but people really need to pull their pants back up and stop letting people like EA or Activision lie so much.
I agree with DMKano. There is already a proliferation of acronyms to describe the games we're playing. Use what's already there.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
An MMO, by original definition, is a game where the player logs into a living breathing "World Server" where thousands of players play on at the same time as each other.
Diablo is not an MMO of any sort, it is an Action RPG. Just because it has multiplayer elements does NOT make an MMO. Just because thousands play the game at the same time doesn't mean it is an MMO. There has to be a world-server for everyone to be playing on without instancing etc.
Diablo III is as far from an "MMO" as you can get.
Again, the problem isn't that we need a new Acronym. The problem is media outlets, like MMORPG.com, that allow companies to lie about their products in order to sell them. No one is calling these companies accountable for lieing.
MMO is fine and dandy for its purpose, but people really need to pull their pants back up and stop letting people like EA or Activision lie so much.
Definitions and terms constantly change meaning. It may not happen quickly, but it happens on a regular basis. "MMO" no longer means what you want it to mean, and you are hopelessly outnumbered. You are of course more than welcome to try and tilt at that windmill, but you aren't just fighting the EAs and Activisions of the world, you're fighting all the players who are fine with D3 being an MMO, and WoW being an MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Wanted to clear up some misconceptions. Any company that self promotes itself (of which MOBA games do NOT) as an MMO when clearly they are not are nothing more than thieves and liars.
Clear and cut.
Note: I am not calling Kano a liar. He's just misinformed
MMORPW - Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing World
You can't call a Cat a Mongoose simply because everyone wants to. A Cat is a Cat regardless of popular opinion.
Same thing with MMOs, and anyone who thinks D3 is an "MMO" can go to their little circle of denial and self loathing. WoW, as much as I want to deny its existance, is an MMO because thousands of players are playing on the same "World Server" as each other without massive instancing to keep them from each other if they choose to. Can't do that in Diablo, because it is an ARPG.
An MMORPG can definitely be that. That it must be that or should be that is your own requirement of MMORPGs and you really shouldn't confuse that with the definition, as it is simply a subset and nothing more.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I agree.
With games like LoL, Team Fortress 2, Dungeon Fighters Online, and Age of Empires being called MMOs... something clearly went wrong.
Publishers started hopping on the word for some underhanded reasons. The two big advantages to calling a game an MMO when it isn't is
a) You can justify the always online heavy DRM requirement, and pushing the sale of in game items and microtransactions, without being called out on it. The Sims Online resorted to calling itself an MMO when its draconian and obtrusive DRM ruined the game experience.
b) You can justify locking items and sticking a monthly fee onto the game because there is tradition of it. TSW and SWTOR did this. Both would have been far superior titles as singleplayer games (and in fact, TSW started as a singleplayer game) but had MMO tossed onto them as well as basic online features, to justify a monthly fee.
The term MMORPG was coined for Ultima Online, specifically to refer to a type of game that had never been seen before. An entirely persistent shared game world that was always online and had thousands of players playing together in the same space.
There was already a term for small dungeon crawlers like Diablo. They weren't called MMOs, though now they are by some misguided people. (What's the difference between D2 and D3? Nothing, except D3 has always online DRM. And because of that, people start calling it an MMO...weird.)
MMOs, with social virtual worlds, and everything that means, needs a new word, because the old one is ruined.
Definitions and terms constantly change meaning. It may not happen quickly, but it happens on a regular basis. "MMO" no longer means what you want it to mean, and you are hopelessly outnumbered. You are of course more than welcome to try and tilt at that windmill, but you aren't just fighting the EAs and Activisions of the world, you're fighting all the players who are fine with D3 being an MMO, and WoW being an MMORPG.
You can't call a Cat a Mongoose simply because everyone wants to. A Cat is a Cat regardless of popular opinion.
Same thing with MMOs, and anyone who thinks D3 is an "MMO" can go to their little circle of denial and self loathing. WoW, as much as I want to deny its existance, is an MMO because thousands of players are playing on the same "World Server" as each other without massive instancing to keep them from each other if they choose to. Can't do that in Diablo, because it is an ARPG.
You're right in that one person cannot call a cat a mongoose. It wouldn't work. If the people who speak English collectively decide to call a cat a mongoose, then the definition of mongoose changes to be the thing that used to be called a cat. The term "cat" gets to mean something else, or it still means "cat", it's just not used any longer.
Languages are in a constant state of change. There is a field of study dedicated to language and how it changes over time. Words are added, removed and put to new purposes on a regular basis. There's no reason to believe that this would not apply to the term "MMO" just as much as it applies to every other term in every other living language in the world.
So yes, the term "MMO" can mean something different than it meant twenty years ago, ten years ago or even last week.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
MMO games DO NOT have to be worlds. They can be highly instanced arenas.
Sorry but just because THOSE games like Wow and EQ label themselves as RPG's they ARE NOT.
The term ROLE PLAY means you are suppose to be playing the role of something you would like to role play but in terms of gaming,you have to choose from that game's selection.It still doesn't change what a role playing experience should be.
The biggest misconception as of now is that people have got comfortable with accepting linear yellow marker questing as a role playing experience.This is probably because that is the COPIED norm,nobody really knows any better.This does NOT meet anything close to the term role playing and what it is.
I will use an easy example that some might recognize.A lot of young boys might have dream of being Wayne Gretky,the legendary hockey player.Well if you were to role play as Wayne Gretzky,you would NEVER be doing quests and becoming a better hockey player by doing quests.You would become a better player by practicing your skills both solo and in a team setting.The problem is that is not enough to sell you a GAME ,however it sort of actually is,if done right.
Now i will point to the one game i feel got it right...FFXI.The ONLY way your player becomes more experienced at ANY of it's traits is to use them and practice them in the field,you NEVER gain xp for doing errands or killing 10 bears or any other quest.The ONLY time it is related is doing a quest to learn a new special skill,which again makes sense,but still you do not get xp towards becoming a better warrior ONLY a new skill,you still need to use that skill to become a better Warrior.The way QUESTS should be done is to gain favor with your nation or other NPC's,again that makes sense,that is what would happen if you did someone a favor in real life.
The only reason all these games can loosely use the title of RPG is because they are for the most part using SOME accepted terms like Fantasy characters,although ANY character type can be Role played as i gave the example of Wayne Gretzky.They also loosely use leveling numbers as a weak form of aging,realistically it is just a pointer to a new set of spells or weapon use,with no realistic reason as to why,but COULD be if they actually used aging ,instead of level numbers.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
A highly instanced arena would go directly against what the word MMO was coined to mean. Can you have a thousand players in this highly instanced arena? Is it online all the time, the same for everyone? No? Then it's not an MMO.
And yes I like the acronym MMORPW.
Why do we need new words? Because the purpose of language is to be clear and communicate a point. The term MMORPG no longer communicates ANYTHING if games as different as UO and LoL can be considered in that same genre.
So, this basically agnolishes my point. Everybody has their own definition, and their own expectations - and nobody knows what the hell to expect when (in example) Blizzard releases its next game marketed as an "MMO".
An analogy would be: As fans we want an arena holding 50,000 people, instead we get a building with 5,000 rooms each with a limit of 10 people. That ain't right.
Course you can. An MMOFPS for example. Thousand's of gamers battling it out in a huge always on server. Can be highly instanced so game doesn't feel claustrophobic.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMO
It doesn't matter what "MMO" meant, other than as a matter historical curiosity. It only matters what "MMO" means right now, because it's probably going to change. That's just how language works. If it didn't, we'd still be grunting at each other.
**
It gets better. Here are the usage notes.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If they aren't sharing the same place, thousands of people aren't battling it out. What you just described is an FPS server. Is Counterstrike an MMO?
I think that sums it up
not mentioned is also browser games / facebook games calling themselves mmos
EQ2 fan sites
If CS servers can hold 1000s of players like I'm implying then yes, it' an MMO.
"Servers" and "sub servers" can hold an infinite amount of people, that is a meaningless way of making a distinction.
The only thing that matters, are the players all playing in the same place? Can they play with and against eachother in a shared world?
If no, then NOT an MMO. Counterstrike allows 20vs20 sometimes. That's not new. Doom could do that. Do you know why Doom wasn't called an MMO? Because that's not massively multiplayer. That's multiplayer.
I'm not talking Doom or CS I'm talking about an MMOFPS designed where upwards of 200 vs 200 battling it out in an arena on a persistant server. Is 200 vs 200 not massive enough? How about 1000 vs 1000?
All I'm getting at is that it does not have to be a living, breathing world. It can be arena based and it also can be instanced based. I can still interact with gamers in a different instance.
You take the 1000's of players playing together in a virtual world you call it an MMO. You take 1000's of players playing a game together in arena and it's not an MMO?
There both the same thing. Massive amounts of players playing together.
You've changed your tune. If 200 vs 200 is happening in a persistent world, it's not a series of tiny instances, which is what you first said. Yes, that would indeed be massive enough, so long as all the 400 players were in the same world.
MMOBSTFPCE