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?
I know you're not that obtuse, Axehilt. No one is calling every multiplayer game an MMO. Many current online multiplayer games fit the acronym, though.
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
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
Haha, you actually made a thread about this? It seems it must have really annoyed you.
@OP, Let's hear your definition of an MMO. You'll get dozens of different replies as to what an MMO truly is. The fact is, there isn't an official definition (wikipedia & online dictionaries don't count), and there never will be.
An MMO is composed of many different concepts and protocols, which is ever-changing.
Massively Multiplayer Online is the definition..... I don't understand how that can confuse a lot of you. MMO is literally the definition. Its not a genre that can be argued. Its a description of the game. MMORPG is a genre. MMO is a descriptor. It is defined already. It has nothing to do with a persistent or open world like some confused people state. Its all about how many people are playing together. If the game is segregated into 5vs5, thats only 10 people playing together. That is not massive. Chess is not a massive multiplayer game just because millions play it.
Saying it's "Massively Multiplayer Online", just isn't enough. You need to be more detailed than that.
What is your definitive definition of a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game?
Take each word separately and define each one using standards and protocols from video game development, then apply all that together and tell me which is a "pure" MMORPG.
My point is, each MMO is designed differently, whether it's server infrastructure, networking, communication, persistence, databases, etc.
The real issue here, is the word "Massively". What constitutes massively? Is it hundreds, thousands? Do they have to occupy a specific space, or can they be spread out? Do they need to be on a single server, or spread across multiple servers? Do they need to be in the open-world or does instancing count?
There isn't an official definition, or an official criteria. The genre is abstract. The sooner people realize this, the sooner these debates will end. lol.
I have always understood MMO means multi-player on line, Games like Destiny , you can play with others on-line, so I don't get it. MMORPG, now that can be defined differently. The writers on this site are capable and good writers. This is has always been my MMO to go site. Keep up the good work guys.
I know you're not that obtuse, Axehilt. No one is calling every multiplayer game an MMO. Many current online multiplayer games fit the acronym, though.
Destiny is just an online multiplayer game, so yeah random multiplayer games are being called MMOs. It seems likely the other game the OP called out is just a multiplayer game too.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Following on from observer, MMO Is a facet, or a cross cutting concern that in itself means very little, it's not a genre or something that can be measured without context. So understanding 'MMO' in itself can only be a literal interpretation of the words.
For MMO to have any meaning it needs context, so where it's a mmorpg, then based on technology and expectation massively means x people, whereas if you say a lobby based MMO coop rpg as another example then x is entirely different.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
A Multiplayer game with a few MMO elements is a Multiplayer game with MMO elements. There is absolutely no need to call it an MMO.
All that would be achieved is rendering a well established genre and acronym into something utterly meaningless.
"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
Normally I'm all for bashing this site but this topic makes no sense. This site has to generate revenue, and like it or not these fluff piece reviews are well thought out ahead of time; so just take it with a grain of salt.
I'd like to point out a couple of things. The early games that would let unlimited numbers of players in the same location couldn't handle massive numbers without grinding the area and maybe the server to a crawl. I remember sieges in Lineage where a hundred to two hundred people were in the same area sieging and the framerates dropped to camera clicks.
Older games limited the number of people per server such that there were only ever a few hundred people currently logged onto the entire server playing at once. So you could play with a lot of people in theory but in rarely worked out that way in practice and when it did the performance fell through the floor.
Modern games limit the number of players per server layer. Games like GW2 and ESO only ever have "massively multi-player" numbers in their non-persistent instanced pvp areas. That's not a bad thing, but they come dangerously close to not meeting your mmo definition.
I do agree with many games not feeling like traditional mmos with player populations. In older games you would see a lot more random traffic passing through. A lot of newer games don't have that sort of random traffic going through. Both GW2 and ESO do a great job of having that random traffic feel while still partitioning off server layers for performance and immersion.
Also games like Destiny and the car racer don't feel at all like older mmos and a lot more like multi-player games, but they aren't just multi-player games either. Our traditional definitions aren't evolving well which is why we're still playing around with semantics like Axehilt points out.
I'm aware of the performance problems that existed particularly in the older MMOs that made a large congregation of players in one spot problematic. DAoC had those too when a few hundred took part in a keep's attack and defense. And I'm also aware that new technology such as that used in "megaserver" games like TSW and ESO have hard caps per area at which point a new version of that area is created on the fly to accommodate the overflow. But neither of those facts take away from what I'm trying to do with my criteria.
The whole purpose of labels and acronyms is to try to communicate an idea with others in a shorthand way that conveys a specific meaning. The acronym MMO has served us well enough to describe a type of game that we in this site presumably are interested in but lately there seem to be some who want to expand the meaning for their own reasons or want to throw their hands up in the air and say that it is meaningless due to a convergence of online games.
I disagree. And my "potential congregation of visible avatars in one place" does the trick for me when I'm trying to decide if an online multi-player game is an MMO or not. It seems t work for others too but some want to know if Websters or Oxford define it that way... I don't care. It's not so much definition as it is just a quick mental exercize that makes it easy, for me, to tell the difference.
If you read the posts in this thread you'll see that some people just don't understand the term and some say the first M has never meant anything to them. Others seem to think that we're talking about whether MMORPG.COM should cover games that are not MMOs and some even seem to assume that by covering a game this site is saying that it's an MMO.
There is also quite a bit of "we might as well cal it an MMO" based on the changes happening in the FPS arena where play areas are getting bigger at the same time that group size limits are also increasing... at the same time MMOs are limiting player concurrence in some areas. This is the area of confusion that interests me and I'm trying to address with my point.
There is a different online feel to playing Destiny or The Crew or GTA V vs. playing TSW or GW2 or ESO. I don't think anyone is saying that the experience feels the same. So... if you don't like my way of differentiating them, what is your way? And please don't tell me that they feel the same way to you.
"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
Are we redifining the genre? That's impossible and we all know intuitively and by experience what a MMORPG is. This is not "www.wereviewgames.com" but this webpage is more than it, they review MMO's and games that are related to the IP's that we MMO gamers seem to like most.
MMORPG will be always the acronym of the same type of games. While EVE and Lineage II are MMO's and we all know it, we all know that Shadows of Angmar is not a MMORPG, but is good that the game is reviewed here as it belongs to an IP of proven preference by MMO gamers, so that, if I can find information here about Destiny, it's welcome, but of course I suppose that are excepctions made out of what gamers wish. I assume naturally all of this whilst I come here as they write about MMORPG's primarily, as I'm a player of MMORPG's.
When something is so clear, we must left the Hermeneutics aside, and go straight to the point.
Enough said. This is my point of view, as valid as any other.
In response to this and your previous response to me, I don't think traditional definitions are evolving well. Destiny isn't just a multiplayer game like Quake 1 was. It's not a traditional mmo either, but it's much more like an mmo than just a multiplayer game.
Traditional first gen mmos like Lineage, EQ, UO, and AC all shared a lot of technological and design attributes that made them easy to categorize neatly. There wasn't a lot of variation or diversity the larger gaming industry when it came to multiplayer tech and design. Now there are tons of different options and designs and nothing fits in our old neater and tidier world.
I don't think these games should be excluded from our discussions and lists because they don't neatly fit in that box. However, we should also be able to easily and clearly describe and identify them without denigrating them based on those attributes. Our compulsive need, as a community, to neatly box and classify everything works against us in this regard.
The problem lies in people using MMO shorthand for MMORPG, so they forget that RPG describes most of the gameplay of a MMORPG, and MMO describes almost nothing (it just means a game has massive multiplayer and is online.)
Destiny is definitely more RPG than Quake 1, which presumably is what you mean.
It's definitely not much more MMO than Quake 1. Does Destiny ever even have Q1's 16 players in the same area? If not, it's arguably less MMOthan Q1!
MMO is basically an adjective. It only modifies another genre, like RPG. By itself it means almost nothing. If someone tells you they have "a red" then you know a tiny scrap of information about what they have, but you're probably going to ask "a red what?"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
Originally posted by Cecropia
Originally posted by Loktofeit
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.
In the days before convenience item cash shops bled out into other genres, it was also used as a free pass by the marketing people. People would be up in arms about selling temporary weapons in a first person shooter, but call it an MMOFPS and even though it's essentially the same lobby-based game, there's less blowback.
Perhaps this site could do with more open-minded fans who are willing to expand their gaming horizons? No?
Personally, I've always been willing to expand my horizons, both related to game, and pretty much everything else. But that's not what this is about.
Calling games like The Crew MMORPGs, is like calling FIFA 2015 a FPS.
you shoot the ball don't you?
FPS ARE EXPANDING!
Except, isn't FIFA a football type of game, i think that makes it comparable to a 12 v 12 game at best, probably gives it more claim to being 'massively multiplayer' more than The Crew or Destiny though
All kidding aside though, as 32 v 32 or even 64 v 64 is classed as being Multiplayer Online, if a game does not significantly exceed those numbers then it is not a Massively Multiplayer game, as much as some might try to muddy the water with definitions, the reality is as simple as 2 + 2 equaling 4 and not 3.5.
There is a different online feel to playing Destiny or The Crew or GTA V vs. playing TSW or GW2 or ESO. I don't think anyone is saying that the experience feels the same. So... if you don't like my way of differentiating them, what is your way? And please don't tell me that they feel the same way to you.
That really depends on what you mean by how it "feels". Playing WoW never felt like playing PotBS, EvE doesn't feel like Mortal Online, LOTRO doesn't feel like Haven & Hearth, Trove didn't feel like RIFT. However, having played the two games in question, unlike many posting I suspect, I can say that all of the games you mentioned, as well as all the ones I just mentioned, share something. The ability to come upon other players out about in the world or zone, group up with them and play the game is exactly the same. In that respect they all do feel very similar.
In the end it doesn't matter whether we call these games MMOs or not. That's not really what the whole argument is about. Just the fact that Destiny and The Crew were mentioned on this website would have been enough for a hate thread to be created, whether it was by the OP or any other poster, the original article wouldn't have even had to mention the acronym MMO. The 5 games mentioned probably are the best options in the B2P space for an MMO or MMO-like-ish-whatever experience, period.
It was the other thread that really argued the merits of each game, and they do each have their own merits, but they are based on personal preferences at the end of the day, this argument is really centered around the definition of what constitutes an MMO, rather than the quality of the games themselves. As for The Crew, i am probably biased against it, as i feel that TDU2 is a much better game, even though its a hell of a lot older, personal preference again, TDU2 while it might have an online element (a particularly bad one!) i much preferred the driving, though i will easily admit that The Crew handles the Online part far better than TDU2 ever did.
There is a different online feel to playing Destiny or The Crew or GTA V vs. playing TSW or GW2 or ESO. I don't think anyone is saying that the experience feels the same. So... if you don't like my way of differentiating them, what is your way? And please don't tell me that they feel the same way to you.
That really depends on what you mean by how it "feels". Playing WoW never felt like playing PotBS, EvE doesn't feel like Mortal Online, LOTRO doesn't feel like Haven & Hearth, Trove didn't feel like RIFT. However, having played the two games in question, unlike many posting I suspect, I can say that all of the games you mentioned, as well as all the ones I just mentioned, share something. The ability to come upon other players out about in the world or zone, group up with them and play the game is exactly the same. In that respect they all do feel very similar.
In the end it doesn't matter whether we call these games MMOs or not. That's not really what the whole argument is about. Just the fact that Destiny and The Crew were mentioned on this website would have been enough for a hate thread to be created, whether it was by the OP or any other poster, the original article wouldn't have even had to mention the acronym MMO. The 5 games mentioned probably are the best options in the B2P space for an MMO or MMO-like-ish-whatever experience, period.
Yes they share that they're Multiplayer Online games (MOs) but not all of them are Massively Multiplayer Online (MMOs.) If they all feel the same to you, that's on your ability to distinguish, not on the MMOs.
You might as well be saying that there is no difference between riding in a car or a bus because you ride in both and there are people there with you. They're both vehicles but they aren't both buses.
"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
Originally posted by Bladestrom Drop the word massively and the whole discussions is resolved. MORPG, job done.
Yes. And let's call everything on wheels that you can ride in, a vehicle. Then no one would ever have to admit that they like mini-vans
"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
Originally posted by Thane what this site really needs is users that complain less ^^
Oh my god, this. It's downright pitiful. I wonder if someone could calculate the rate of teeth gnashing before and after SWG closed its gates.
The endless posts about how crappy MMOs are nowadays and how awesome they were back in the day has got to be taking a toll on site traffic. I mean, there's only so many time the staff can roll out that MMOExposed account to troll up a threadnaoght before even that doesn't help clicks/views anymore.
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
There is a different online feel to playing Destiny or The Crew or GTA V vs. playing TSW or GW2 or ESO. I don't think anyone is saying that the experience feels the same. So... if you don't like my way of differentiating them, what is your way? And please don't tell me that they feel the same way to you.
That really depends on what you mean by how it "feels". Playing WoW never felt like playing PotBS, EvE doesn't feel like Mortal Online, LOTRO doesn't feel like Haven & Hearth, Trove didn't feel like RIFT. However, having played the two games in question, unlike many posting I suspect, I can say that all of the games you mentioned, as well as all the ones I just mentioned, share something. The ability to come upon other players out about in the world or zone, group up with them and play the game is exactly the same. In that respect they all do feel very similar.
In the end it doesn't matter whether we call these games MMOs or not. That's not really what the whole argument is about. Just the fact that Destiny and The Crew were mentioned on this website would have been enough for a hate thread to be created, whether it was by the OP or any other poster, the original article wouldn't have even had to mention the acronym MMO. The 5 games mentioned probably are the best options in the B2P space for an MMO or MMO-like-ish-whatever experience, period.
Yes they share that they're Multiplayer Online games (MOs) but not all of them are Massively Multiplayer Online (MMOs.) If they all feel the same to you, that's on your ability to distinguish, not on the MMOs.
You might as well be saying that there is no difference between riding in a car or a bus because you ride in both and there are people there with you. They're both vehicles but they aren't both buses.
its not bus and car, its like same van, one with passenger seats, one with cargo hold.
Though pne with passenger seats can take more people, if you drive alone all the time - experience is SAME in both.
Originally posted by Thane what this site really needs is users that complain less ^^
Oh my god, this. It's downright pitiful. I wonder if someone could calculate the rate of teeth gnashing before and after SWG closed its gates.
The endless posts about how crappy MMOs are nowadays and how awesome they were back in the day has got to be taking a toll on site traffic. I mean, there's only so many time the staff can roll out that MMOExposed account to troll up a threadnaoght before even that doesn't help clicks/views anymore.
LOL... you know... I have wondered...
"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
Comments
I know you're not that obtuse, Axehilt. No one is calling every multiplayer game an MMO. Many current online multiplayer games fit the acronym, though.
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
oh no additional free content - mmorpg.com YOU MONSTERS
Saying it's "Massively Multiplayer Online", just isn't enough. You need to be more detailed than that.
What is your definitive definition of a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game?
Take each word separately and define each one using standards and protocols from video game development, then apply all that together and tell me which is a "pure" MMORPG.
My point is, each MMO is designed differently, whether it's server infrastructure, networking, communication, persistence, databases, etc.
The real issue here, is the word "Massively". What constitutes massively? Is it hundreds, thousands? Do they have to occupy a specific space, or can they be spread out? Do they need to be on a single server, or spread across multiple servers? Do they need to be in the open-world or does instancing count?
There isn't an official definition, or an official criteria. The genre is abstract. The sooner people realize this, the sooner these debates will end. lol.
Destiny is just an online multiplayer game, so yeah random multiplayer games are being called MMOs. It seems likely the other game the OP called out is just a multiplayer game too.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
For MMO to have any meaning it needs context, so where it's a mmorpg, then based on technology and expectation massively means x people, whereas if you say a lobby based MMO coop rpg as another example then x is entirely different.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
A Multiplayer game with a few MMO elements is a Multiplayer game with MMO elements. There is absolutely no need to call it an MMO.
All that would be achieved is rendering a well established genre and acronym into something utterly meaningless.
"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
I'm aware of the performance problems that existed particularly in the older MMOs that made a large congregation of players in one spot problematic. DAoC had those too when a few hundred took part in a keep's attack and defense. And I'm also aware that new technology such as that used in "megaserver" games like TSW and ESO have hard caps per area at which point a new version of that area is created on the fly to accommodate the overflow. But neither of those facts take away from what I'm trying to do with my criteria.
The whole purpose of labels and acronyms is to try to communicate an idea with others in a shorthand way that conveys a specific meaning. The acronym MMO has served us well enough to describe a type of game that we in this site presumably are interested in but lately there seem to be some who want to expand the meaning for their own reasons or want to throw their hands up in the air and say that it is meaningless due to a convergence of online games.
I disagree. And my "potential congregation of visible avatars in one place" does the trick for me when I'm trying to decide if an online multi-player game is an MMO or not. It seems t work for others too but some want to know if Websters or Oxford define it that way... I don't care. It's not so much definition as it is just a quick mental exercize that makes it easy, for me, to tell the difference.
If you read the posts in this thread you'll see that some people just don't understand the term and some say the first M has never meant anything to them. Others seem to think that we're talking about whether MMORPG.COM should cover games that are not MMOs and some even seem to assume that by covering a game this site is saying that it's an MMO.
There is also quite a bit of "we might as well cal it an MMO" based on the changes happening in the FPS arena where play areas are getting bigger at the same time that group size limits are also increasing... at the same time MMOs are limiting player concurrence in some areas. This is the area of confusion that interests me and I'm trying to address with my point.
There is a different online feel to playing Destiny or The Crew or GTA V vs. playing TSW or GW2 or ESO. I don't think anyone is saying that the experience feels the same. So... if you don't like my way of differentiating them, what is your way? And please don't tell me that they feel the same way to you.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Are we redifining the genre? That's impossible and we all know intuitively and by experience what a MMORPG is. This is not "www.wereviewgames.com" but this webpage is more than it, they review MMO's and games that are related to the IP's that we MMO gamers seem to like most.
MMORPG will be always the acronym of the same type of games. While EVE and Lineage II are MMO's and we all know it, we all know that Shadows of Angmar is not a MMORPG, but is good that the game is reviewed here as it belongs to an IP of proven preference by MMO gamers, so that, if I can find information here about Destiny, it's welcome, but of course I suppose that are excepctions made out of what gamers wish. I assume naturally all of this whilst I come here as they write about MMORPG's primarily, as I'm a player of MMORPG's.
When something is so clear, we must left the Hermeneutics aside, and go straight to the point.
Enough said. This is my point of view, as valid as any other.
It is a question of fangs.
The problem lies in people using MMO shorthand for MMORPG, so they forget that RPG describes most of the gameplay of a MMORPG, and MMO describes almost nothing (it just means a game has massive multiplayer and is online.)
Destiny is definitely more RPG than Quake 1, which presumably is what you mean.
It's definitely not much more MMO than Quake 1. Does Destiny ever even have Q1's 16 players in the same area? If not, it's arguably less MMO than Q1!
MMO is basically an adjective. It only modifies another genre, like RPG. By itself it means almost nothing. If someone tells you they have "a red" then you know a tiny scrap of information about what they have, but you're probably going to ask "a red what?"
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Personally, I've always been willing to expand my horizons, both related to game, and pretty much everything else. But that's not what this is about.
Calling games like The Crew MMORPGs, is like calling FIFA 2015 a FPS.
+1
It is a question of fangs.
Just wanted to let you know about this new sandbox thats in development by 1 dev,
the work he has done so far is pretty stunning for a medieval game tons of cool
features check it out at http://realmzero.com/
In the days before convenience item cash shops bled out into other genres, it was also used as a free pass by the marketing people. People would be up in arms about selling temporary weapons in a first person shooter, but call it an MMOFPS and even though it's essentially the same lobby-based game, there's less blowback.
Except, isn't FIFA a football type of game, i think that makes it comparable to a 12 v 12 game at best, probably gives it more claim to being 'massively multiplayer' more than The Crew or Destiny though
All kidding aside though, as 32 v 32 or even 64 v 64 is classed as being Multiplayer Online, if a game does not significantly exceed those numbers then it is not a Massively Multiplayer game, as much as some might try to muddy the water with definitions, the reality is as simple as 2 + 2 equaling 4 and not 3.5.
It was the other thread that really argued the merits of each game, and they do each have their own merits, but they are based on personal preferences at the end of the day, this argument is really centered around the definition of what constitutes an MMO, rather than the quality of the games themselves. As for The Crew, i am probably biased against it, as i feel that TDU2 is a much better game, even though its a hell of a lot older, personal preference again, TDU2 while it might have an online element (a particularly bad one!) i much preferred the driving, though i will easily admit that The Crew handles the Online part far better than TDU2 ever did.
Oh my god, this. It's downright pitiful. I wonder if someone could calculate the rate of teeth gnashing before and after SWG closed its gates.
Yes they share that they're Multiplayer Online games (MOs) but not all of them are Massively Multiplayer Online (MMOs.) If they all feel the same to you, that's on your ability to distinguish, not on the MMOs.
You might as well be saying that there is no difference between riding in a car or a bus because you ride in both and there are people there with you. They're both vehicles but they aren't both buses.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Yes. And let's call everything on wheels that you can ride in, a vehicle. Then no one would ever have to admit that they like mini-vans
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The endless posts about how crappy MMOs are nowadays and how awesome they were back in the day has got to be taking a toll on site traffic. I mean, there's only so many time the staff can roll out that MMOExposed account to troll up a threadnaoght before even that doesn't help clicks/views anymore.
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 not bus and car, its like same van, one with passenger seats, one with cargo hold.
Though pne with passenger seats can take more people, if you drive alone all the time - experience is SAME in both.
LOL... you know... I have wondered...
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D