I've got an idea, make a website that only talks about "real" MMOs - seamless, open world sandboxes, and see how many users you get and how many sponsors/advertising dollars you can bring in!
Yeah! Business model!
It's not about what genres this or any site covers, but about mmorpg.com trying to sell every other game as being "MMO" or respectively "RPG".
In the past games with say 16 players on the map were just called "multiplayer". According to this site's articles every lobbygame is "massive multiplayer" and if you can upgrade weapons it qualifies as an "RPG".
For a mmorpg-site it's reasonable to expand you coverage, as the last 10 years of this genre have been meager. But parroting buzzwords the publishers (= ad money) feed to you or clickbaiting with every other article is not journalism, it's selling out your integrity.
By that, I mean stop bitching about what the sitefolk are doing and show them something they can publish. You might be surprised.
Actually, after I read about the fake MMO Hall of Fame, and saw they were voting for games such as League of Legends to enter the MMO HOF, I purchased my own site. I bought it to create one that has people who are involved in MMO's (playing or developing) to participate. Frankly, at my pace itll be a year or so when it launches. It wont be a complicated site by any means.
Either way, I am doing something about it. And I am not flaming/trolling people for once. Not angry either, I would just appreciate not having non MMO games advertised as MMO's.
I went into Destiny knowing it wasnt an MMO. But holy crap would I be upset if I didn't look things up and saw that there was only like 4 people playing the game with me in my world.
Originally posted by lugal Mmo= massive multiplayer online. What part of Destiny or The Crew not massive? Not multiplayer? Not online? The terns used continue to evolve. There is no set size to determine what is massive, so many online games are now mmo's, whether we as players agree or not. Online games now need proper suffix's to identify the game, mmofps, mmosprpg, mmorpg. Etc etc. What this site is doing is fine by me and I support the broader use of mmo for this site. For we have fewer sites to browse these days.
Exactly.
It never ceases to amaze me how often peoples opinions are attacked for the simple reason of attracting more negative debate. The writer had an opinion that was well thought out and constructive. No-one is forcing you to agree or even click on the article. There is nothing constructive with making narrow vitriolic statements.
Personally I enjoyed reading the article and even learned of a new game (The Crew) that I had never heard of. I did not agree with everything but as I had nothing constructive to add or debate I didn't waste my time with a reply.
I seriously doubt any part of that article was written with advertisers in mind. It was simply one guys take on a subject relevant to this website.
Its not an opinion. MMO is not a genre. Its a definition. No room for opinions on this one I am afraid
You can have the opinion that the earth is flat, but its still wrong lol.
That maybe so but for a game to be called an MMO the potential for a massively large number of players to be in the game world at the same place needs to be there. Otherwise it's not an MMO.
According to whom? Since when has numbers in proximity been a criteria? Travian and Grepolis are no less an MMO than EQ is, yet they have hundreds of concurrent players per server and the majority of the game takes place in a single-player view. I don't recall seeing any more than a dozen or so people in the same place in Furcadia. Is that no longer an MMO? Is APB's Social District the only thing making that game an MMO?
Seems like a very odd and arbitrary criteria.
The very definition of MMO is a ton of people playing the game TOGETHER. Not in segregated worlds. Its literally the definition. Its what MMO's like UO and EQ started. You aren't limited to only 16 people in your game.
Chess is not an Massively Multiplayer game just because millions are playing it. Its just a multiplayer game. Now if you had a gigantic chess board and a few hundred people were all playing it together, thats Massively Multiplayer. But having several hundred separate boards with 2 people playing on each is not.
Originally posted by zwei2 A non-trollish article that invokes critical thinking is a piece of work. This news gets people to engage in a decades-old topic - what makes a game an MMO?
Critical thinking is great. The problem is the type of critical thinking being evoked...
An article about "online RPGs" could have led to a higher discussion about the merits of each game.
Instead, the article misused "MMO", and conversation degenerated into semantics.
It's disappointing to see critical thinking wasted on re-defining things whose definition is obvious based on the word itself (massive multiplayer online.)
The author himself, who is obviously new to MMO's in genre, tried to argue that GuildWars 1 was even an MMO. He wasn't just trying to advertise buy to play games, he was trying to bastardize the english language.
Sorry guys, but changing the definitions of words isn't up to you.
Originally posted by Bascola Well, MMORGPS are declining so they need to add advertisement revenue from other genres. They can't rename the site...
And I have said multiple times I have no problem with that. But they made a list of 5 mmos that are buy to play. Out of that list of 5, only 3 are MMORPGs's.
I would gladly read articles, and I have, about non mmo games on this site. Such as Path of Exile which I enjoy very much. But I don't want to eagerly look at an article about MMO's only to find standard multiplayer games in there. If its labeled MMO I want an MMO!
You don't go out asking for apples and settle with an egg do ya? Its not even the same damn thing. Both are edible and it ends there.
Fixed it for you
You didn't fix anything. I wrote what I intended. All 5 games were called an MMO, yet two are not.
The Crew is quite massive, when freely roaming you share the world with the other players. Just like another similar game, Need for Speed World.
I play the Crew, you are limited to the amount of people you can see on the screen. You may see just a few. And when you race its only a few of you too. You will never see even 100 players together because everything is segregated. Its not an MMO.
Just to be clear, I love MMOs and non MMO games. I and many other have no problem with MMORPG.com covering games we may or may not like that arent MMO's. All we are asking is that a non MMO game be classified for what it actually is. Thats all
Originally posted by Bascola Well, MMORGPS are declining so they need to add advertisement revenue from other genres. They can't rename the site...
And I have said multiple times I have no problem with that. But they made a list of 5 mmos that are buy to play. Out of that list of 5, only 3 are MMORPGs's.
I would gladly read articles, and I have, about non mmo games on this site. Such as Path of Exile which I enjoy very much. But I don't want to eagerly look at an article about MMO's only to find standard multiplayer games in there. If its labeled MMO I want an MMO!
You don't go out asking for apples and settle with an egg do ya? Its not even the same damn thing. Both are edible and it ends there.
Fixed it for you
You didn't fix anything. I wrote what I intended. All 5 games were called an MMO, yet two are not.
The Crew is quite massive, when freely roaming you share the world with the other players. Just like another similar game, Need for Speed World.
I play the Crew, you are limited to the amount of people you can see on the screen. You may see just a few. And when you race its only a few of you too. You will never see even 100 players together because everything is segregated. Its not an MMO.
From what I've read, they limit the amount of players you can see to the closest ones for performance reasons. Remember, it's a RACING game, performance and frame rate is way more important than in the usual MMOs.
What would be the point of displaying 100+ cars in the distance if your frame rate drops below 10 and at the next turn, you lag so badly that you end in a tree?
Exactly. So its not an MMO as you can't play with with 100+ cars. Sure that wouldn't be practical, but that just means that a racing MMO is not practical. It doesn't mean that a racing multiplayer game isn't practical though. Just because a game doesn't make sense to be made into a full fledged MMO, doesn't mean you can suddenly call it an MMO because you end up seeing a ton of people over time.... Its only an MMO if its an MMO. Remember... its a definition.
You shouldn't make definite statements like "MOBAs are not MMOs" when even the term MMO is relative and arbitrary.
What is massive/massively and what is not? Does the Clan Wars system make World of Tanks an MMO-BA?
What constitutes as a multiplayer game? Is Dark Souls a multiplayer game since other players can leave you messages and can, with limits, visit your game instance?
Can a game be an MMO if there's an option to play off-line?
What implicit features are/should be attributed to MMOs?
Who decides all these?
The prudent thing is to say that "MMO is something different to everybody", and just really leave it at that. For a knowledgeable gamer, it is not too hard to shoot down every attempt to define the term.
The term MMO has become relative and arbitrary only recently. We all knew what kind of game we were talking about when we said it 10 years ago. The only confusion and debate in those days seemed to center around GW1.
I don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
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
Originally posted by Bascola Well, MMORGPS are declining so they need to add advertisement revenue from other genres. They can't rename the site...
And I have said multiple times I have no problem with that. But they made a list of 5 mmos that are buy to play. Out of that list of 5, only 3 are MMORPGs's.
I would gladly read articles, and I have, about non mmo games on this site. Such as Path of Exile which I enjoy very much. But I don't want to eagerly look at an article about MMO's only to find standard multiplayer games in there. If its labeled MMO I want an MMO!
You don't go out asking for apples and settle with an egg do ya? Its not even the same damn thing. Both are edible and it ends there.
Fixed it for you
You didn't fix anything. I wrote what I intended. All 5 games were called an MMO, yet two are not.
The Crew is quite massive, when freely roaming you share the world with the other players. Just like another similar game, Need for Speed World.
I play the Crew, you are limited to the amount of people you can see on the screen. You may see just a few. And when you race its only a few of you too. You will never see even 100 players together because everything is segregated. Its not an MMO.
From what I've read, they limit the amount of players you can see to the closest ones for performance reasons. Remember, it's a RACING game, performance and frame rate is way more important than in the usual MMOs.
What would be the point of displaying 100+ cars in the distance if your frame rate drops below 10 and at the next turn, you lag so badly that you end in a tree?
Exactly. So its not an MMO as you can't play with with 100+ cars. Sure that wouldn't be practical, but that just means that a racing MMO is not practical. It doesn't mean that a racing multiplayer game isn't practical though. Just because a game doesn't make sense to be made into a full fledged MMO, doesn't mean you can suddenly call it an MMO because you end up seeing a ton of people over time.... Its only an MMO if its an MMO. Remember... its a definition.
You realize that every MMO limits the amount of characters visible on the screen, right?
So we read it here first... MMOs actually do NOT exist.
=P
Some limits are much larger than others. Some, especially PVP games like ESO and GW2 even have massive limits
Does anyone other than me know what a "portal storm" referred to in Aheron's Call? It was their primitive way of load balancing: when there were too many people in one place (typically a town) a portal storm would manifest itself and port the required number fo players away to random locations near the town... at least they tried to incorporate their kludge into the game lore
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
You shouldn't make definite statements like "MOBAs are not MMOs" when even the term MMO is relative and arbitrary.
What is massive/massively and what is not? Does the Clan Wars system make World of Tanks an MMO-BA?
What constitutes as a multiplayer game? Is Dark Souls a multiplayer game since other players can leave you messages and can, with limits, visit your game instance?
Can a game be an MMO if there's an option to play off-line?
What implicit features are/should be attributed to MMOs?
Who decides all these?
The prudent thing is to say that "MMO is something different to everybody", and just really leave it at that. For a knowledgeable gamer, it is not too hard to shoot down every attempt to define the term.
The term MMO has become relative and arbitrary only recently. We all knew what kind of game we were talking about when we said it 10 years ago. The only confusion and debate in those days seemed to center around GW1.
I don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
The english language defined what MMO means. CORPG was a co-op role playing game. So an RPG was that co-operative, not massively multiplayer.
Literally, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of the english language. Its not even disputable. I know you are a smart guy cause I've read your post for years, I think you just need to think on it for a minute. Maybe just having a long brain fart. I dunno.
Originally posted by Bascola Well, MMORGPS are declining so they need to add advertisement revenue from other genres. They can't rename the site...
And I have said multiple times I have no problem with that. But they made a list of 5 mmos that are buy to play. Out of that list of 5, only 3 are MMORPGs's.
I would gladly read articles, and I have, about non mmo games on this site. Such as Path of Exile which I enjoy very much. But I don't want to eagerly look at an article about MMO's only to find standard multiplayer games in there. If its labeled MMO I want an MMO!
You don't go out asking for apples and settle with an egg do ya? Its not even the same damn thing. Both are edible and it ends there.
Fixed it for you
You didn't fix anything. I wrote what I intended. All 5 games were called an MMO, yet two are not.
The Crew is quite massive, when freely roaming you share the world with the other players. Just like another similar game, Need for Speed World.
I play the Crew, you are limited to the amount of people you can see on the screen. You may see just a few. And when you race its only a few of you too. You will never see even 100 players together because everything is segregated. Its not an MMO.
From what I've read, they limit the amount of players you can see to the closest ones for performance reasons. Remember, it's a RACING game, performance and frame rate is way more important than in the usual MMOs.
What would be the point of displaying 100+ cars in the distance if your frame rate drops below 10 and at the next turn, you lag so badly that you end in a tree?
Exactly. So its not an MMO as you can't play with with 100+ cars. Sure that wouldn't be practical, but that just means that a racing MMO is not practical. It doesn't mean that a racing multiplayer game isn't practical though. Just because a game doesn't make sense to be made into a full fledged MMO, doesn't mean you can suddenly call it an MMO because you end up seeing a ton of people over time.... Its only an MMO if its an MMO. Remember... its a definition.
You realize that every MMO limits the amount of characters visible on the screen, right?
So we read it here first... MMOs actually do NOT exist.
It is Potato, NOOO it is Potato, Noo I disagree "writes bunch of meaningless remarks" Therefore it is properly Potato and not Potato. Don't get me started on Tomato. You don't even eat Tomato's why are you here telling us what it is?
I don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
I personally don't give a crap about what this site or any other says about games being MMOs or not. I'm experienced enough with those games to make the difference between those which have indeed a world shared by a massive amount of players at the same time, and that's the games I'm interested in, and the "pseudo" MMOs which are just lobbys giving access to instances for solo or small group play.
When people start to call Diablo III a MMO, you know the definition of that acronym doesn't mean anything anymore, and that the only thing you can trust is your own judgment and experience.
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
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 don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
I personally don't give a crap about what this site or any other says about games being MMOs or not. I'm experienced enough with those games to make the difference between those which have indeed a world shared by a massive amount of players at the same time, and that's the games I'm interested in, and the "pseudo" MMOs which are just lobbys giving access to instances for solo or small group play.
When people start to call Diablo III a MMO, you know the definition of that acronym doesn't mean anything anymore, and that the only thing you can trust is your own judgment and experience.
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
Its also a matter if i get same experience in game A and B, does it really matter what definition of MMO is?
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
It's not rage it's bewilderment at how all of a sudden everything became an MMO. People have a tendency to call BS when it's right up in their face.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
Words and acronyms are usually apply to specific things, so that people who communicate using them understand each other.
You want a cat, but when you arrive at the address which was advertising selling a cat, you discover that it's a dog they have. See what I mean? Yeah, they are both animals, but they are very different.
Same for massive multiplayer world games vs online lobby games. They are very different, and not made for the same audience, even though of course some people will enjoy both.
I guess that's why some people are annoyed by this.
Exactamundo!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Bungie themselves have weighed in on this, just like Arenanet did with Guild Wars. But some people are so out of the hobby/gaming they just cant fathom what MMO means.
"Not at all. Do you guys ever get tired of us insisting it's not an MMO? Debate about this game is always fun, and we welcome it," Bungie said
When the average mmorpg.com player base thinks that Subscription, FFA PvP, Tab Targeting and Sandbox are the only valid MMO design it isn't unreasonable to see how the writers here go through great lengths to build upon those notions. Don't blame the writers here for pandering.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
I personally don't give a crap about what this site or any other says about games being MMOs or not. I'm experienced enough with those games to make the difference between those which have indeed a world shared by a massive amount of players at the same time, and that's the games I'm interested in, and the "pseudo" MMOs which are just lobbys giving access to instances for solo or small group play.
When people start to call Diablo III a MMO, you know the definition of that acronym doesn't mean anything anymore, and that the only thing you can trust is your own judgment and experience.
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
Words and acronyms are usually apply to specific things, so that people who communicate using them understand each other.
You want a cat, but when you arrive at the address which was advertising selling a cat, you discover that it's a dog they have. See what I mean? Yeah, they are both animals, but they are very different.
Same for massive multiplayer world games vs online lobby games. They are very different, and not made for the same audience, even though of course some people will enjoy both.
I guess that's why some people are annoyed by this.
I can understand that. I guess it's that I see MMO as a much bigger umbrella than simply MMORPGs when looking at the gamespace they occupy and the audiences they attract. I actually look at MMO and MMORPG as two different groups, with the latter being a subset of the former.
I completely agree that acronyms have meaning, which is why we have MMORPG, ARPG, MMOFPS, MOBA, MMORTS, CORPG, etc. However, it's worth noting that this is one of the few crowds that still clings to "MMO = MMORPG".
Now, had the title been "5 Great Buy-to-Play MMORPGs" I'd question the title, too.
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
When the average mmorpg.com player base thinks that Subscription, FFA PvP, Tab Targeting and Sandbox are the only valid MMO design it isn't unreasonable to see how the writers here go through great lengths to build upon those notions. Don't blame the writers here for pandering.
I've worked on the web side of things for various gaming sites including IGN, Vault Network, and Stratics. One thing they seemed to have in common is that the traffic that visits the site for front page content has little overlap with the traffic that visits the site for the forums. I'd be willing to bet that MMORPG.com is no different.
I think a good number of the posters in this thread are under the impression that the article was written for them, and I'm not quite sure that's the case.
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
The author himself, who is obviously new to MMO's in genre, tried to argue that GuildWars 1 was even an MMO. He wasn't just trying to advertise buy to play games, he was trying to bastardize the english language.
Sorry guys, but changing the definitions of words isn't up to you.
What possible benefit is there in applying "MMO" to every multiplayer game? Why not just call them multiplayer games?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I like the direction MMORPG is going. Also can't wait for the new web page to go live. Keep up the great work guys you have a few of us that love what you are doing!
Comments
It's not about what genres this or any site covers, but about mmorpg.com trying to sell every other game as being "MMO" or respectively "RPG".
In the past games with say 16 players on the map were just called "multiplayer". According to this site's articles every lobbygame is "massive multiplayer" and if you can upgrade weapons it qualifies as an "RPG".
For a mmorpg-site it's reasonable to expand you coverage, as the last 10 years of this genre have been meager. But parroting buzzwords the publishers (= ad money) feed to you or clickbaiting with every other article is not journalism, it's selling out your integrity.
Actually, after I read about the fake MMO Hall of Fame, and saw they were voting for games such as League of Legends to enter the MMO HOF, I purchased my own site. I bought it to create one that has people who are involved in MMO's (playing or developing) to participate. Frankly, at my pace itll be a year or so when it launches. It wont be a complicated site by any means.
Either way, I am doing something about it. And I am not flaming/trolling people for once. Not angry either, I would just appreciate not having non MMO games advertised as MMO's.
I went into Destiny knowing it wasnt an MMO. But holy crap would I be upset if I didn't look things up and saw that there was only like 4 people playing the game with me in my world.
I agreed with OP !
Today many players think every game what request internet conection is MMO , MMO is not MP or co-op or moba or just online activation ... etc ...
I am sick by top 10 /anything other MMO list where are half & more games are NOT MMO's !
Its not an opinion. MMO is not a genre. Its a definition. No room for opinions on this one I am afraid
You can have the opinion that the earth is flat, but its still wrong lol.
The very definition of MMO is a ton of people playing the game TOGETHER. Not in segregated worlds. Its literally the definition. Its what MMO's like UO and EQ started. You aren't limited to only 16 people in your game.
Chess is not an Massively Multiplayer game just because millions are playing it. Its just a multiplayer game. Now if you had a gigantic chess board and a few hundred people were all playing it together, thats Massively Multiplayer. But having several hundred separate boards with 2 people playing on each is not.
Remember, MMO is a definition, not a genre.
The only thing I would change about the writing is the amount of "list" type columns. They are meaningless and usually lead to yet another forum war.
The author himself, who is obviously new to MMO's in genre, tried to argue that GuildWars 1 was even an MMO. He wasn't just trying to advertise buy to play games, he was trying to bastardize the english language.
Sorry guys, but changing the definitions of words isn't up to you.
I play the Crew, you are limited to the amount of people you can see on the screen. You may see just a few. And when you race its only a few of you too. You will never see even 100 players together because everything is segregated. Its not an MMO.
MMO is short for...
exactly what those games are.
Regardless, care?
Exactly. So its not an MMO as you can't play with with 100+ cars. Sure that wouldn't be practical, but that just means that a racing MMO is not practical. It doesn't mean that a racing multiplayer game isn't practical though. Just because a game doesn't make sense to be made into a full fledged MMO, doesn't mean you can suddenly call it an MMO because you end up seeing a ton of people over time.... Its only an MMO if its an MMO. Remember... its a definition.
I don't remember seeing an industry-accepted definition in the past decade and a half that I have worked in it. The most consistent definition I have seen is that it is a large number of players in a virtual world. Proximity and manner in which the virtual world was represented was never a criteria.
Can you link to the concrete definition that was previously used?
As for GW1, that was always called a CORPG, and back when it was released it was still only trivial circles such as this that gave a crap if a game was a 'real' MMO or not.
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
Some limits are much larger than others. Some, especially PVP games like ESO and GW2 even have massive limits
Does anyone other than me know what a "portal storm" referred to in Aheron's Call? It was their primitive way of load balancing: when there were too many people in one place (typically a town) a portal storm would manifest itself and port the required number fo players away to random locations near the town... at least they tried to incorporate their kludge into the game lore
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The english language defined what MMO means. CORPG was a co-op role playing game. So an RPG was that co-operative, not massively multiplayer.
Literally, all you have to do is have a basic understanding of the english language. Its not even disputable. I know you are a smart guy cause I've read your post for years, I think you just need to think on it for a minute. Maybe just having a long brain fart. I dunno.
LOL.
It is Potato, NOOO it is Potato, Noo I disagree "writes bunch of meaningless remarks" Therefore it is properly Potato and not Potato. Don't get me started on Tomato. You don't even eat Tomato's why are you here telling us what it is?
Fair enough. It's kind of why I don't get the point of people raging about someone having a different definition.
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
Its also a matter if i get same experience in game A and B, does it really matter what definition of MMO is?
It's not rage it's bewilderment at how all of a sudden everything became an MMO. People have a tendency to call BS when it's right up in their face.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Exactamundo!
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
When the average mmorpg.com player base thinks that Subscription, FFA PvP, Tab Targeting and Sandbox are the only valid MMO design it isn't unreasonable to see how the writers here go through great lengths to build upon those notions. Don't blame the writers here for pandering.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I can understand that. I guess it's that I see MMO as a much bigger umbrella than simply MMORPGs when looking at the gamespace they occupy and the audiences they attract. I actually look at MMO and MMORPG as two different groups, with the latter being a subset of the former.
I completely agree that acronyms have meaning, which is why we have MMORPG, ARPG, MMOFPS, MOBA, MMORTS, CORPG, etc. However, it's worth noting that this is one of the few crowds that still clings to "MMO = MMORPG".
Now, had the title been "5 Great Buy-to-Play MMORPGs" I'd question the title, too.
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've worked on the web side of things for various gaming sites including IGN, Vault Network, and Stratics. One thing they seemed to have in common is that the traffic that visits the site for front page content has little overlap with the traffic that visits the site for the forums. I'd be willing to bet that MMORPG.com is no different.
I think a good number of the posters in this thread are under the impression that the article was written for them, and I'm not quite sure that's the case.
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
What possible benefit is there in applying "MMO" to every multiplayer game? Why not just call them multiplayer games?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!