Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MO in MMO Clothing, I'm sick of it.
Warjin
Member UncommonPosts: 1,216
I'm about to give up, it's so hard to find an honest person or site now day sor at the very least a person or site that knows what the hell a MMO is, just about every web site and youtube video showcases new so called MMO's as MMO's, when hey are not MMO's but are in fact MO game, Multi player Online games not Massively Multi player online.
This pisses me off to no end and is nothing but misleading to people, here is the thing, "If the game doe not have a massive persistent world, 'THEN IT'S NOT A MMO", this means 90% of all games that say they are a MMO's are not MMO's but MO games.
MMO's are games like Planetside, Darkfall, WoW(hate all you want), EvE, the old school games (Daoc, AC, EQ, UO ect), GW2,are MMO's
Games like LoL, PoE, even Neverwinter are NOT MMO's but indeed MO games, if the dam game has a lobby then it's not a MMO, if the game is divided into zones that you can not travel to from one zone to another with other players then it's not a MMO.
This is what's wrong with MMO's today, the goddam Dev's are lying or have no clue what a MMO is, just because you can play with other people online does not make the game a MMO.
This site needs a hashtag all MO games and hashtab all MMO games next to the name to help people know what they are getting into, please MMORPG.com set your self apart from all the other clueless gaming sites on the internet and mark the games accordingly.
Set the standards on what classifies as a MMO because no one else on the internet seems to know.
Comments
The MMO aspect I really "meh" about. RPG, most important.
When I see a thread about LoL (a MOBA) on a MMORPG site, yeah, it's getting to be ridiculous.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Actually you're wrong too all the "real MMO's" you listed are technically MMORPGs. MMO is somewhat of a general term for any game that is online, multiplayer and serves a large playerbase network simultaneously. Persistent worlds are not a requirement, nor are many other MMORPG staples. Now why are MMO's that are not MMORPG's hosted, reviewed and discussed at length on a website called MMORPG.com? Well because MMORPG.com was created when the vast majority of MMO's were MMORPG's. In recent years there has been a vast surge in popularity of alternative MMO genres and MMORPG.com has adopted covering those games as well to remain relevant since the MMORPG genre in particular has been stagnating.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Just because someone disagrees with your definition does not make them wrong.
I have to agree with OP here. It didn't used to be like this.
Everyone knew that Everquest was an MMORPG and Diablo II was an ARPG online game. Simple as that.
I don't remember the names of the first games that were basically LOBBBY "MMO" that used the MMO monicker for sales, or whatever, but they really screwed up the definition. Then u have games like Phantasy Star Online that people started calling an MMORPG for some reason even though its more like Diablo then Everquest. Then all went to hell.
I love sitting in PoE Global 2 while some kid says "this MMO...blah blah". Then 20 OG's tell him, hey kid, this isn't an MMO. Who the hell told em it was? IDK, but it's not IMO. so +1 to OPs point of view is all.
Once again my friend you don't have an understanding of the subject. First of all that definition you pulled up is largely debatable, I'll give you two definitions that fit my description:
"A massively multiplayer online game. A computer game in which a large number of players can simultaneously interact in a persistent world or can potentially play against a large number of players in matchmaking" from Wiktionary.org
or
"A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet.[1] Many games have at least one persistent world, however others just have large numbers of players competing at once in one form or another without any lasting effect to the world at all. ' by Wikipedia
And these two literally took me 30 seconds to find, imagine how many I could find you if I took some time on it.
So calm yourself and realize that you're not as smart as you think you are. The point of my argument still stands regardless of what definition you choose:
Are games like LoL MMORPG's? No. Why are they on MMORPG.com? Cause MMORPG.com was created during a time when the vast majority of popular MMO's were in fact MMORPG's by genre. Now that genre has stagnated and the website has spread to other booming MMO genres to remain relevant
MMO (RP) Game mean
massively (unknown number ranger from 2 to infinity) multiplayer (play a same game at same time) online (through internet line)
It don't need massive game world to be called MMO , but it need massively and unlimited number of players possible able to join the game.
In logic , you can't call LOL a MMO since "massive" part of it wasn't game , but simple a program to gather players created room to start game .
It don't have "game" formula (have player/s > a challenge (goal) >win/lost.) to be called "multiplayer" , not even "multiplayer"
So even LOL have millions online in same time at same server , LOL can't be called MMO
It massive part wasn't game
The game part of LOL is "multiplayer" with limited max 10 player can play in same time.
So it can be called MO (multiplayer online) game , but it wrong to call it MMO.
Unless you try to call "make room and wait for your mates" are game , then ...
As for MMOgame with instances like WOW (i think this is best example),
Instances (with limited number of player) and quests/tasks are "multiplayer/single player mini games" inside MMO game so they can be called MMO games.
But most of this kind of game are bad (in MMO mean) though they are good (some are bad) in (multiplayer/single player) game mean
because the MMO part are lame and don't have much contents , it like collect of many mini games (instances).
So what a true MMO game look like ?
Image a server of Diablo 2 with massive unlimited number of players play in same time with object to slay Baal (a challenge) to clean the game (archive a goal)
That's what called true MMO games.
Many MMO games (after WOW) aren't met the expected success (WOW killed) because the MMO part are close to zero , though they have pretty good "multiplayer" parts (instances/quests/tasks) ,
That's because player who search for MMO games wasn't get what they want , and people who don't like MMO don't bite the bait.
I don't know if i right or wrong , but let think :
What do you think if SWTOR made as single player game (like diablo 2) with multiplayer online option and not lame MMORPG ?
Might as well list Call of Duty as a MMO the term has pretty much been watered down so much it would apply. I mean when 10 player matches and 4 player lobby games are rampantly listed as MMO's pretty much anything that is online and multiplayer is a MMO because millions of people are playing them.
That or you could call it an MMO hybrid. Which is just as laughable to me as listing Call of Duty on this site.
Personally I look at it as a buzzword with no real meaning and can call anything with ten or less players in a match or lobby system not a MMO with dead certainty. That's just me.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Call of Duty is not called an MMO because it has an offline component. By definition MMO's require an internet connection to play.
If it require internet connection to play then it just multiplayer online (MO) , not MMO. Because it limited number of player can join in each game
A game can only count as game when player who join have same object , while COD is game's name , it not a game (which only start when player/s start it)
wow .. another semantic thread?
How many times people have to debate the "meaning" of MMO?
Oh well, i guess it is time to state my stance again. Why blow a fuse about some literal definition anyway? It is just a label for a collection of games. I will use whatever that is common usage. So what if many websites & industrial research company call LoL a MMO?
The game is the same. It is not like it will magically grow a virtual world.
"or can potentially play against a large number of players in matchmaking"
That definition was wrong, and someone on Wiktionary fixed it already.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
That's weasle wording. Because MOBA is essentially a WoW battleground. In itself a WoW battleground wouldn't be considered massive at all -- only maps like AV and IoC had maps larger than BF3 64mans. That's not massive, and certainly not a RPG, too.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Finally our laziness and desire to abbreviate everything catches up with us.
MMORPG - Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. End of story.
MMO - Abbreviation for MMORPG, no matter what anyone tells you.
MO - WTF is an MO? Who even felt the need to abbreviate MMO?
What is wrong with the genre is not, and has never been, development. What is wrong with the genre is the community that allows itself to be taught and manipulated by the newbie, who is in turn being taught and manipulated by the marketer, instead of TEACHING.
You want to be sick of something, be sick of yourself.
I do not recognize the terms MMO or MO in any other fashion other than I have listed above. I suggest, unless you want to log into something that just calls itself an M one day that you do the same.
Other terms that have been bastardized by people who learned how to type before they learned how to read.
Troll - Used to mean a guy who patrolled (get it? pa-TROLLED) the forums looking for any excuse to argue any point. Now means anyone that does anything that you don't think they should be doing.
LOL - Used to mean that something was funny enough to make you FEEL like laughing out loud (although you usually didn't). Was mutated into something that people actually said out loud in place of saying "That was funny" (which really took me aback the first time I heard it haha), now means League of Legends, a game. See how the marketers work?
WTF - Another term originally used to relay a thought process. One similar to an exclamation point above a cartoon characters head. Mutated into something that people said out loud (again taking me aback), now generally used as an abusive term usually followed by some completely self serving statement.
Example - (Paraphrased) "DUDE?!? WTF?!? WHY DID YOU PICK THAT UP WHEN YOU KNEW I COULD USE IT?!?!
F2P - A term that originally meant "Free to Play", implying that said game to which it was attached required no monetary investment.
This was a good one because they really worked on it a lot to get it from the statement above to the definition that F2P now means.
First they changed the word "Play" into "Kind of Play". Meaning that you were not REALLY playing the game as it was constructed but instead playing a "VERSION" of the game that had been built specifically for the purpose of free play. Then they separated the word "VERSION" into the version that could be played "SUCESSFULLY" and the version that could not be played successfully, thus changing the concept of playing the game for free into the concept of simply being able "ENTER" the game for free. Then they came up with a whole new term to describe the difference between the original term and the new meaning for the same term, this new term being P2W (pay to win).
And we just accepted that shit like it was ok.
I could go on but I know that the amount of characters in this post alone was enough to cause 80% of the people who looked at this string to skip completely over what I have said so far anyway and so I am not going to waste the time.
But check it out. I did at least type out enough, short attention span theater or not, to make my point. And that is the thing that everyone needs to do all the time if they don't want to deal with the things that they are saying being turned into something completely different than what they meant.
You fancy yourself an MMORPG player? Then learn the terminology, use it, and hold the others around you accountable for not using it properly.
It's a shame that things have to come to this point but shame has its place in the world for a reason. To keep people from doing things that they should be ashamed of doing.
You think that's being a bully? Tell it to your professor, cause a grade ain't nothing but an institutionalized way of shaming.
/tangent off
I'm pretty sure the forum mod of this site know many of those games are not MMORPG.
They just list here to drive traffic and make money with Ads. People take things too seriously.
Your professors must've allowed you to use Wikipedia as a source for your research papers. SHAME ON THEM!
Seriously, the definition you posted is only there due to the influx of online multiplayer games that have become accessible to a variety of players due to the free-to-play subscription being so popular now. Not to mention how our gaming culture and the way we play have changed.
People are forgetting what a real massive multiplayer online gaming is. True. The current active player base for games like LoL are !@#$% HUGE! But the technology supporting those games aren't exactly setup the same way as a game like Everquest, World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars 2.
Let's say I were to drop a ultra rare item in the game world near a statue in Town A and advertise its availability over the World chat first-come-first-served. Of course the item has a despawn time, but every single player on that server(we're talking thousands) should all have an opportunity to receive it regardless of what location they're in. In fact, if you were to run to Town A you might see a few hundred standing around the said statue looking for what I was giving away.
Semantics police are up and at 'em!
Why do people think that labeling games MMO will change them? It's just simple taxonomy, build a bridge.
"Marketing Convenience"
That's all it is.
These people are trying to market their games to as many people as possible. If it means fudging the definitions a little bit to make their game "sorta kinda maybe remotely" fit the definition, they'll do it.
Sadly, people do the same thing.
Put simply.. We're living in a time where it seems established definitions mean absolutely nothing and words can mean whatever the person using them wishes them to. People call Guild Wars 2 "Free To Play" - even though:
1: You have to buy the game to play it at all, which makes it not free by definition, and
2: the term "free to play" was created specifically to define a game that requires no initial fee - no box purchase, no subscription fee, no required payment of any kind - to play it. If nothing else, having the word "Free" in the label should pretty much set a clear distinction for everyone. Yet it doesn't.
I'm on board with the idea of "MMO" being a good "root" term, because it can be whatever subset of that, as defined in its following letters... MMORPG, MMOFPS, etc...
However, I agree that calling League of Legends a "MMORPG" is ridiculous. Calling Diablo 3 a MMORPG (which it has been referred to as, repeatedly) is ridiculous.
The term MMORPG was founded around a very specific set of games, which all met a very specific set of criteria - including the idea of a "persistent world supporting hundreds or thousands of simultaneous players" - over a decade ago now. There was no confusion. MMORPGs continued to be called MMORPGs. Action RPGs (Diablo type games) continued to be called ARPGs. Battle Arenas (DoTA, etc) continued to be called MOBAs. Each had very specific definitions and meanings, and everyone understood what they meant, and exactly what kind of game they were.
If someone told you "City of Heroes is a MMORPG", you knew that meant it was closer to a game like Everquest or Anarchy Online, than it was to DoTA or Diablo 2.
For people to come along now, blurring definitions and muddying the waters just so they can "sneak in" advertising for their game where it doesn't really belong is just an abuse of the term.
As I said... "Marketing Convenience".
Since most people are simply passive and uninterested "tourists" through websites like this, they'll read advertising or some article, and if they see Diablo 3 referred to as a MMORPG... "hey... I guess it's a MMORPG". They don't even stop to think about it. They just accept it as being "what it must be". And then we end up with ridiculous arguments/debates such as this thread with everyone throwing their own definitions around.