Kilrain said: I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
My last paragraph was an attempt to illustrate the point
that while it is possible to expand the definition of the term 'MMO' to, for
example, include any game that 'allows for multiplayer with persistent characters'
(which would include Destiny), doing so would not necessarily be a good thing.
The point being that if we did that, it would no longer be sufficient to simply
call something an MMO without further clarification as to which type* of
MMO you are talking about... and thus making the term 'MMO', by itself, of
little use.
Personally I prefer the term 'Shared World' for games such as Destiny, as that
is really what they are; you are sharing the world with other players, you are
NOT participating in a multiplayer experience on a 'massive' scale. And for
anyone that thinks we can't simply invent a new term for games such as Destiny,
as opposed to having to shoehorn them into being an MMO, I have four
letters for you: MOBA
* To clarify, by type, I do not mean RPG, FPS, etc. I mean, small scale
instanced auto-matched + friends (i.e. Destiny style), large scale open and
social (traditional MMO), etc.
Easiest way to end this... People should ALWAYS have opinions,it means you are alive and thinking. Weather that opinion is shared or good or bad dos not matter,all that matters is you think a little and don't buy into everything someone else says.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I hate to say this .....but Defiance has open world, group events(Ark Falls..etc.) co-op missions, and separate pvp areas, some weapon mods..Outdated..not a bad model?
I'm Sorry Bill, but I will never get over some of the things in your list, like grouping vs solo for instance, MMORPG's are ment to be played together. There is not a single reason for anything else, and this will ALWAYS annoy me. Sure I accept the sad way of things and move on , but I will never change my mind about it, it's just that odd and frankly it deserves to be "BANISHED" from MMO's or MMORPG's.
All the things he listed are pretty much all preference to players so he does have a point but I doubt people will put their differences aside anytime soon.
I'm gonna have to disagree with him the most about the Acronym though, Destiny is a game inspired by mmos yes but its not an mmo its a multiplayer game just like the division is a multiplayer game. If you label something as an mmo and it ends up not being the correct genre name people will get deceived and if people become less aware of this issue then more devs will start labeling their games mmos when its pretty obvious its a multiplayer game. Then all of a sudden theres a possibility of controversy just like NMS. People can respond to that by saying the following.
"You guys said it was an mmo but I tried it and its several miles away from an mmo its more like a multiplayer game, devs lied and decieved, I want a refund!"
I hope you all realize deception is a big deal.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
When the free to play games took over the paid...The venom got spilled and that was that for mmorpg paid games and mmorpg.com. No use of beating a dead horse with a stick..
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
Since it was Richard Garriott and his team who coined the phrase massive
multiplayer online role playing game, maybe someone should get his
input on what they meant. I suspect they just coined the term based on
what they were working on at the time (ultima online) and didn't
actually mean it to be a hard and fast definition for a genre.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
Firstly, MMO stands for massiveLY multiplayer online, not massive. Its an important distinction, as it means the "massively" word applies to the multiplayer part of the acronym, rather than to the game as a whole.
So, "massive" is an adjective, so it modifies the next noun in the sentence (game). "massively" is an adverb, so it modifies the next noun, verb or adjective (multiplayer)
Its not about servers either, so you need to dismiss that thinking. Games like COD use centralised servers that host 100s of games simultaneously, so you might have 1000s of people on the same physical server, but they aren't actually capable of playing together because they're in their own instance of the game.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
While I can generally get behind all of these, in the end what it truly comes down to is trying to erase the prevailing culture that says "if someone disagrees with me they are wrong and stupid". So much of everywhere we go boils down to this. Disliking something automatically means that some folks feel compelled to enter into a discussion simply to tear down and belittle those who do like it.
Case in point is nearly any game under discussion anywhere on this site. Some people, for instance, love WoW despite its warts and foibles. Others feel it incumbent to enter every single thread about WoW to spew the same old tired hatred just...because.
Disagreements are fine. Rational, non-combative reasonable discussions about why there even is a disagreement should be the norm, not the exception.
That is what really needs to change in gaming...hell in any space on the Internet these days.
You can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force. ~Publilius Syrus
I've been reading on this site for a long time but first time I've found a need to post. I come to this site more for the discussions about games from the community, not so much the columnists. One person's opinion means very little to me.
That being said, SBFord is dead on!!!
The only thing I don't like is when I see people putting others down just for having a difference of opinion. Or as I like to call them...internet tough guys. And yes, this problem is all over the internet these days!!!
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
Since it was Richard Garriott and his team who coined the phrase massive
multiplayer online role playing game, maybe someone should get his
input on what they meant. I suspect they just coined the term based on
what they were working on at the time (ultima online) and didn't
actually mean it to be a hard and fast definition for a genre.
He did it to differentiate from standard multiplayer. I think that's pretty obvious.
While I agree with the rest of the list (i.e. there is no 'one true way' to make an MMO), the acronym is still very important. Why? Because unless a label means something, then it is useless.
To put it another way, if we are to call games such as Destiny ‘Massively Multiplayer Online’, then what are we to call games such as EverQuest, EvE or even vanilla WoW; Large World Extra Social Super Massively Multiplayer Online? And where do we draw the line; is Dark Souls an ‘MMO’ too, because you know, it has lots of players connected to the same server that can potentially play together (in small groups)? In short, these may all be ‘online games’, but the play experience is very different, and they need to be labelled differently if those labels are going to be at all useful.
To illustrate this with an example, if someone told you they like FPS games, you wouldn't have much trouble recommending the likes of Doom, Wolfenstein, or even Destiny. And if they said they like RTS games then StarCraft 2, Age of Empires, or even the Total War games would be a safe bet. But now if someone says they like 'MMOs', your next question needs to be 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMOs (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their boarder social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'.
Edit: For grammer and better game examples.
A long long time ago... In a galaxy far far away...
They had RPG's. Then one day people came up with ideas to expand on them. They created MMORPG's and they came in many shapes and sizes.
As time went on somebody who liked to make shooters thought "Hey some of that MMORPG shit is pretty cool" and they incorporated some of it. Next thing you know we start getting the early versions of MMOFPS's
As far as:
" 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMO's (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their broader social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'. "
goes...
Right now I'd argue that MMORPG's have pretty much ended up being focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" whereas MMOFPS's are pretty much starting out focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" So we can hope that in their evolution they can go in the direction of "broader social experience and larger worlds to explore"
Really, what does it matter if we have MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, MMORTS's MMOact/adv's etc. ect. ect.
IMHO we'll have no problems being able to differentiate between them
Disclaimer: I believe you meant "broader" instead of "boarder" I took the liberty of making the spell correction in my quote. My apologies if I was in error.
I think it flew straight over your head. The focus is on "MMO", as in, massively multiplayer. Doesn't matter if it's fps, strategy, rpg what matters in this context is how are those players handled in the world, how are they interacting. Destiny did not have MMO characteristics because people did not play in the same world at the same time as everyone else. I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
While I agree with the rest of the list (i.e. there is no 'one true way' to make an MMO), the acronym is still very important. Why? Because unless a label means something, then it is useless.
To put it another way, if we are to call games such as Destiny ‘Massively Multiplayer Online’, then what are we to call games such as EverQuest, EvE or even vanilla WoW; Large World Extra Social Super Massively Multiplayer Online? And where do we draw the line; is Dark Souls an ‘MMO’ too, because you know, it has lots of players connected to the same server that can potentially play together (in small groups)? In short, these may all be ‘online games’, but the play experience is very different, and they need to be labelled differently if those labels are going to be at all useful.
To illustrate this with an example, if someone told you they like FPS games, you wouldn't have much trouble recommending the likes of Doom, Wolfenstein, or even Destiny. And if they said they like RTS games then StarCraft 2, Age of Empires, or even the Total War games would be a safe bet. But now if someone says they like 'MMOs', your next question needs to be 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMOs (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their boarder social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'.
Edit: For grammer and better game examples.
A long long time ago... In a galaxy far far away...
They had RPG's. Then one day people came up with ideas to expand on them. They created MMORPG's and they came in many shapes and sizes.
As time went on somebody who liked to make shooters thought "Hey some of that MMORPG shit is pretty cool" and they incorporated some of it. Next thing you know we start getting the early versions of MMOFPS's
As far as:
" 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMO's (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their broader social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'. "
goes...
Right now I'd argue that MMORPG's have pretty much ended up being focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" whereas MMOFPS's are pretty much starting out focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" So we can hope that in their evolution they can go in the direction of "broader social experience and larger worlds to explore"
Really, what does it matter if we have MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, MMORTS's MMOact/adv's etc. ect. ect.
IMHO we'll have no problems being able to differentiate between them
Disclaimer: I believe you meant "broader" instead of "boarder" I took the liberty of making the spell correction in my quote. My apologies if I was in error.
I think it flew straight over your head. The focus is on "MMO", as in, massively multiplayer. Doesn't matter if it's fps, strategy, rpg what matters in this context is how are those players handled in the world, how are they interacting. Destiny did not have MMO characteristics because people did not play in the same world at the same time as everyone else. I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
You're arguing from a glass soapbox.
No, you are missing the point entirely. Massively multiplayer defines a game where you log into a server and everyone is there. You don't hop from server to server to play with your friends or hope to get matched up with them. This has nothing to do with how many people are currently playing the game. If you and your friend log into an MMO you would ask them "where do you want to meet up" not "what server are we going to play on today". There's a pretty damn big distinction that I think a lot of people are just failing to see.
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
You're arguing from a glass soapbox.
With all of them? Didn't think so. Next.
How many do you usually play with? I have heard that there are 16 players allowed per zone in Destiny. What is a zone? How many concurrent players are there? That I don't know. I know they had talked about servers supporting thousands of users in the same gaming world, but it obviously balances them throughout the world, too.
What's the max on something like WoW or ESO? I've read that ESO allows for 200 people per faction, per instance, per area. I don't know what that amounts to. However, it will never be more than 200 people you can interact with, right?
This is where the "massively" part begins losing its meaning. I don't know how many people are playing in Destiny at once, is there a definitive article covering the number of concurrent players?
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
You're arguing from a glass soapbox.
With all of them? Didn't think so. Next.
How many do you usually play with? I have heard that there are 16 players allowed per zone in Destiny. What is a zone? How many concurrent players are there? That I don't know. I know they had talked about servers supporting thousands of users in the same gaming world, but it obviously balances them throughout the world, too.
What's the max on something like WoW or ESO? I've read that ESO allows for 200 people per faction, per instance, per area. I don't know what that amounts to. However, it will never be more than 200 people you can interact with, right?
This is where the "massively" part begins losing its meaning. I don't know how many people are playing in Destiny at once, is there a definitive article covering the number of concurrent players?
I don't know what ESO's "max" is or if they have one, but I'd say the difference between 16 and 200 per faction is pretty .... dare I say, massive? And if ESO has those limitations I'd say it's definitely on the low end for an MMO. It doesn't matter how many you play with, I play most MMO's either solo or with 5 or less friends. I will group with random people from time to time or fight them or fight over spawns with them. There's a big difference. I'm sorry you guys don't see it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
You're arguing from a glass soapbox.
With all of them? Didn't think so. Next.
How many do you usually play with? I have heard that there are 16 players allowed per zone in Destiny. What is a zone? How many concurrent players are there? That I don't know. I know they had talked about servers supporting thousands of users in the same gaming world, but it obviously balances them throughout the world, too.
What's the max on something like WoW or ESO? I've read that ESO allows for 200 people per faction, per instance, per area. I don't know what that amounts to. However, it will never be more than 200 people you can interact with, right?
This is where the "massively" part begins losing its meaning. I don't know how many people are playing in Destiny at once, is there a definitive article covering the number of concurrent players?
I don't know what ESO's "max" is or if they have one, but I'd say the difference between 16 and 200 per faction is pretty .... dare I say, massive? And if ESO has those limitations I'd say it's definitely on the low end for an MMO. It doesn't matter how many you play with, I play most MMO's either solo or with 5 or less friends. I will group with random people from time to time or fight them or fight over spawns with them. There's a big difference. I'm sorry you guys don't see it.
You can have 600 in one zone... Cyrodiil.
"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
While I agree with the rest of the list (i.e. there is no 'one true way' to make an MMO), the acronym is still very important. Why? Because unless a label means something, then it is useless.
To put it another way, if we are to call games such as Destiny ‘Massively Multiplayer Online’, then what are we to call games such as EverQuest, EvE or even vanilla WoW; Large World Extra Social Super Massively Multiplayer Online? And where do we draw the line; is Dark Souls an ‘MMO’ too, because you know, it has lots of players connected to the same server that can potentially play together (in small groups)? In short, these may all be ‘online games’, but the play experience is very different, and they need to be labelled differently if those labels are going to be at all useful.
To illustrate this with an example, if someone told you they like FPS games, you wouldn't have much trouble recommending the likes of Doom, Wolfenstein, or even Destiny. And if they said they like RTS games then StarCraft 2, Age of Empires, or even the Total War games would be a safe bet. But now if someone says they like 'MMOs', your next question needs to be 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMOs (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their boarder social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'.
Edit: For grammer and better game examples.
A long long time ago... In a galaxy far far away...
They had RPG's. Then one day people came up with ideas to expand on them. They created MMORPG's and they came in many shapes and sizes.
As time went on somebody who liked to make shooters thought "Hey some of that MMORPG shit is pretty cool" and they incorporated some of it. Next thing you know we start getting the early versions of MMOFPS's
As far as:
" 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMO's (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their broader social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'. "
goes...
Right now I'd argue that MMORPG's have pretty much ended up being focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" whereas MMOFPS's are pretty much starting out focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" So we can hope that in their evolution they can go in the direction of "broader social experience and larger worlds to explore"
Really, what does it matter if we have MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, MMORTS's MMOact/adv's etc. ect. ect.
IMHO we'll have no problems being able to differentiate between them
Disclaimer: I believe you meant "broader" instead of "boarder" I took the liberty of making the spell correction in my quote. My apologies if I was in error.
I think it flew straight over your head. The focus is on "MMO", as in, massively multiplayer. Doesn't matter if it's fps, strategy, rpg what matters in this context is how are those players handled in the world, how are they interacting. Destiny did not have MMO characteristics because people did not play in the same world at the same time as everyone else. I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
If a game like STO with
"Instances have player limits, although the limit depends on the type of instance and how many players Cryptic decided should be the maximum. For instance, Deep Space Encounters are typically set to a 5 player limit, whereas the Earth Spacedock has a player limit of 50 per instance. Cryptic sets these limits based upon the amount of strain that multiple players will cause, both on the server, and user computer, in each individual instance."
I think the doors are pretty wide open, or perhaps we only have a very small hand of MMO's
So.... How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
The world may never know.
I don't believe anything went over my head.
I feel you are spot in saying "real" MMOs haven't been made in years and more modern games with their shards, instances and mega server designs not really qualifying.
I'd love to have further debates on that topic, but when its such a struggle to prove the point on a title such as Destiny which should have been low hanging fruit, why bother?
Maybe one day if the market ever returns to rationality.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
While I agree with the rest of the list (i.e. there is no 'one true way' to make an MMO), the acronym is still very important. Why? Because unless a label means something, then it is useless.
To put it another way, if we are to call games such as Destiny ‘Massively Multiplayer Online’, then what are we to call games such as EverQuest, EvE or even vanilla WoW; Large World Extra Social Super Massively Multiplayer Online? And where do we draw the line; is Dark Souls an ‘MMO’ too, because you know, it has lots of players connected to the same server that can potentially play together (in small groups)? In short, these may all be ‘online games’, but the play experience is very different, and they need to be labelled differently if those labels are going to be at all useful.
To illustrate this with an example, if someone told you they like FPS games, you wouldn't have much trouble recommending the likes of Doom, Wolfenstein, or even Destiny. And if they said they like RTS games then StarCraft 2, Age of Empires, or even the Total War games would be a safe bet. But now if someone says they like 'MMOs', your next question needs to be 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMOs (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their boarder social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'.
Edit: For grammer and better game examples.
A long long time ago... In a galaxy far far away...
They had RPG's. Then one day people came up with ideas to expand on them. They created MMORPG's and they came in many shapes and sizes.
As time went on somebody who liked to make shooters thought "Hey some of that MMORPG shit is pretty cool" and they incorporated some of it. Next thing you know we start getting the early versions of MMOFPS's
As far as:
" 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMO's (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their broader social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'. "
goes...
Right now I'd argue that MMORPG's have pretty much ended up being focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" whereas MMOFPS's are pretty much starting out focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" So we can hope that in their evolution they can go in the direction of "broader social experience and larger worlds to explore"
Really, what does it matter if we have MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, MMORTS's MMOact/adv's etc. ect. ect.
IMHO we'll have no problems being able to differentiate between them
Disclaimer: I believe you meant "broader" instead of "boarder" I took the liberty of making the spell correction in my quote. My apologies if I was in error.
I think it flew straight over your head. The focus is on "MMO", as in, massively multiplayer. Doesn't matter if it's fps, strategy, rpg what matters in this context is how are those players handled in the world, how are they interacting. Destiny did not have MMO characteristics because people did not play in the same world at the same time as everyone else. I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
I interacted with other people in the same world. Next.
Does the "MMO" you have in mind have 30 million players that bought and played the game in the last couple of years? I'm not talking about 15 years of account collection. By comparison can you even give me an mmo example? Most mmos by comparison aren't really massive are they. I mean, wtf, a few hundred people on a server? That's massive? No wait, let's make it a few thousand, even though you won't see more than 20 or 30 at a time. MMOs aren't massive in that perspective. I've seen more people run around in the Splatoon lobby than some Massively Multiplayer Online games.
You're arguing from a glass soapbox.
No, you are missing the point entirely. Massively multiplayer defines a game where you log into a server and everyone is there. You don't hop from server to server to play with your friends or hope to get matched up with them. This has nothing to do with how many people are currently playing the game. If you and your friend log into an MMO you would ask them "where do you want to meet up" not "what server are we going to play on today". There's a pretty damn big distinction that I think a lot of people are just failing to see.
IMHO your failing to see the reality of the genre.
Which games meet your criteria? The player base is separated by servers and/or instances in pretty much all of them.
The ones that fit your criteria we could probably count and they wouldn't use all our fingers.
@Demogorgon The reality of the genre is not something I'm pleased with, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
While I agree with the rest of the list (i.e. there is no 'one true way' to make an MMO), the acronym is still very important. Why? Because unless a label means something, then it is useless.
To put it another way, if we are to call games such as Destiny ‘Massively Multiplayer Online’, then what are we to call games such as EverQuest, EvE or even vanilla WoW; Large World Extra Social Super Massively Multiplayer Online? And where do we draw the line; is Dark Souls an ‘MMO’ too, because you know, it has lots of players connected to the same server that can potentially play together (in small groups)? In short, these may all be ‘online games’, but the play experience is very different, and they need to be labelled differently if those labels are going to be at all useful.
To illustrate this with an example, if someone told you they like FPS games, you wouldn't have much trouble recommending the likes of Doom, Wolfenstein, or even Destiny. And if they said they like RTS games then StarCraft 2, Age of Empires, or even the Total War games would be a safe bet. But now if someone says they like 'MMOs', your next question needs to be 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMOs (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their boarder social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'.
Edit: For grammer and better game examples.
A long long time ago... In a galaxy far far away...
They had RPG's. Then one day people came up with ideas to expand on them. They created MMORPG's and they came in many shapes and sizes.
As time went on somebody who liked to make shooters thought "Hey some of that MMORPG shit is pretty cool" and they incorporated some of it. Next thing you know we start getting the early versions of MMOFPS's
As far as:
" 'Do you mean like Destiny style MMO's (with their focus on instanced multiplayer loot grinds), or EverQuest style MMOs (with their broader social experience and larger worlds to explore)?'. "
goes...
Right now I'd argue that MMORPG's have pretty much ended up being focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" whereas MMOFPS's are pretty much starting out focused as "multiplayer loot grinds" So we can hope that in their evolution they can go in the direction of "broader social experience and larger worlds to explore"
Really, what does it matter if we have MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, MMORTS's MMOact/adv's etc. ect. ect.
IMHO we'll have no problems being able to differentiate between them
Disclaimer: I believe you meant "broader" instead of "boarder" I took the liberty of making the spell correction in my quote. My apologies if I was in error.
I think it flew straight over your head. The focus is on "MMO", as in, massively multiplayer. Doesn't matter if it's fps, strategy, rpg what matters in this context is how are those players handled in the world, how are they interacting. Destiny did not have MMO characteristics because people did not play in the same world at the same time as everyone else. I'm not sure where acidblood was going with his last paragraph, but the rest was spot on IMO.
If a game like STO with
"Instances have player limits, although the limit depends on the type of instance and how many players Cryptic decided should be the maximum. For instance, Deep Space Encounters are typically set to a 5 player limit, whereas the Earth Spacedock has a player limit of 50 per instance. Cryptic sets these limits based upon the amount of strain that multiple players will cause, both on the server, and user computer, in each individual instance."
I think the doors are pretty wide open, or perhaps we only have a very small hand of MMO's
So.... How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
The world may never know.
I don't believe anything went over my head.
I feel you are spot in saying "real" MMOs haven't been made in years and more modern games with their shards, instances and mega server designs not really qualifying.
I'd love to have further debates on that topic, but when its such a struggle to prove the point on a title such as Destiny which should have been low hanging fruit, why bother?
Maybe one day if the market ever returns to rationality.
It's actually startling, how little it seems the genre has moved forward in the last 20 years. You would think they'd have been able to do a lot more with the huge improvements in technology over that time besides prettier graphics and more profitable business models.
I agree that you shouldn't push your version of fun on someone else but there is a problem of seperation that I don't agree with.
You cannot realistically have PvE mechanics in the same game with PvP mechanics. in a game where half the players are 8 manning a single monster with 85,000 hit points, youcan't suddenly use the same combat mechanics to fight other players who have 120 hit points without a 20 foot crowbar in the mechanics to make it work
In a game where the entire world in nicely hand rafted environments for theme park dungeon raid bosses and quests, you can't also suddenly add buildable castles, roads and towns with player politics (sandbox) and not break it.
The reason why people "fight" over PvP vs PvE in a game is because the other half of the players and their version of fun is an obstacle to the other half who are trying to have their version of fun.
The game developers are trying to make everyone happy in a single game and "broaden there base" to make more money and it will never work. Pick one, PvP or PvE, Theme or Sandbox, Sub for everyone or Cash shop it. Make two version of the game if you have to, ya know like the Roleplaying Server and the "No PvP" server from way back, eventhat doesnt really work because your game was buolt for one not the other? But don't mix the Hardcore PvP players and the Casual Co-op players into the same room and tell them all to play nice.
You go play Stardew Valley, I'm gonig to go Play For Honor. DO NOT make an RPG Farming simulator that is also a 3d competitive brawler at the same time to get me and my wife to play together. It won't work
Comments
My last paragraph was an attempt to illustrate the point that while it is possible to expand the definition of the term 'MMO' to, for example, include any game that 'allows for multiplayer with persistent characters' (which would include Destiny), doing so would not necessarily be a good thing. The point being that if we did that, it would no longer be sufficient to simply call something an MMO without further clarification as to which type* of MMO you are talking about... and thus making the term 'MMO', by itself, of little use.
Personally I prefer the term 'Shared World' for games such as Destiny, as that is really what they are; you are sharing the world with other players, you are NOT participating in a multiplayer experience on a 'massive' scale. And for anyone that thinks we can't simply invent a new term for games such as Destiny, as opposed to having to shoehorn them into being an MMO, I have four letters for you: MOBA
* To clarify, by type, I do not mean RPG, FPS, etc. I mean, small scale instanced auto-matched + friends (i.e. Destiny style), large scale open and social (traditional MMO), etc.
People should ALWAYS have opinions,it means you are alive and thinking.
Weather that opinion is shared or good or bad dos not matter,all that matters is you think a little and don't buy into everything someone else says.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well said.
*sarcasm*
I'm gonna have to disagree with him the most about the Acronym though, Destiny is a game inspired by mmos yes but its not an mmo its a multiplayer game just like the division is a multiplayer game. If you label something as an mmo and it ends up not being the correct genre name people will get deceived and if people become less aware of this issue then more devs will start labeling their games mmos when its pretty obvious its a multiplayer game. Then all of a sudden theres a possibility of controversy just like NMS. People can respond to that by saying the following.
"You guys said it was an mmo but I tried it and its several miles away from an mmo its more like a multiplayer game, devs lied and decieved, I want a refund!"
I hope you all realize deception is a big deal.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
5 - The Acronym
We’re going to have a column with the staff later this week discussing the finer points of this one, and we’ve got articles abound across the site discussing this very topic. My own recent point of view on Destiny’s worth for the industry sparked a debate about the MMO/RPG acronym that I really wasn’t hoping for. Frankly, we may never come to an agreement about what constitutes an MMO
Its simple, MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, so for example Ghost Recon Wildlands has Multiplayer and online but not Massive, so its not an MMO, and WoW has all 3 so its an MMO.
Only one problem is the first M (Massive), some think 10 players is already Massive while others think Massive begins at 100 players on one server, but if you look at it differently and not judge the numbers of players on one server but in general playing at the same time that can join each other in a match by any Matchmaking then World of Tanks, DOTA 2 and even Overwatch can become an MMO and any online game can.
But clearly for me the first M (Massive) always means in one server, if it starts at 10 players or 100 players thats the only discussion and not what MMO stands for in general otherwise I think even Tetris can become an MMO Also
Five Things MMO Fans Need to Get Over
When the free to play games took over the paid...The venom got spilled and that was that for mmorpg paid games and mmorpg.com.
No use of beating a dead horse with a stick..
I retired retroactively..Haha
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So, "massive" is an adjective, so it modifies the next noun in the sentence (game).
"massively" is an adverb, so it modifies the next noun, verb or adjective (multiplayer)
Its not about servers either, so you need to dismiss that thinking. Games like COD use centralised servers that host 100s of games simultaneously, so you might have 1000s of people on the same physical server, but they aren't actually capable of playing together because they're in their own instance of the game.
I've been reading on this site for a long time but first time I've found a need to post. I come to this site more for the discussions about games from the community, not so much the columnists. One person's opinion means very little to me.
That being said, SBFord is dead on!!!
The only thing I don't like is when I see people putting others down just for having a difference of opinion. Or as I like to call them...internet tough guys. And yes, this problem is all over the internet these days!!!
With all of them? Didn't think so. Next.
How many do you usually play with? I have heard that there are 16 players allowed per zone in Destiny. What is a zone? How many concurrent players are there? That I don't know. I know they had talked about servers supporting thousands of users in the same gaming world, but it obviously balances them throughout the world, too.
What's the max on something like WoW or ESO? I've read that ESO allows for 200 people per faction, per instance, per area. I don't know what that amounts to. However, it will never be more than 200 people you can interact with, right?
This is where the "massively" part begins losing its meaning. I don't know how many people are playing in Destiny at once, is there a definitive article covering the number of concurrent players?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
These topics are much more fun .
Heck you're here with me right?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Wrong is not the same as different.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I'd love to have further debates on that topic, but when its such a struggle to prove the point on a title such as Destiny which should have been low hanging fruit, why bother?
Maybe one day if the market ever returns to rationality.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Which games meet your criteria? The player base is separated by servers and/or instances in pretty much all of them.
The ones that fit your criteria we could probably count and they wouldn't use all our fingers.
@Demogorgon The reality of the genre is not something I'm pleased with, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You cannot realistically have PvE mechanics in the same game with PvP mechanics. in a game where half the players are 8 manning a single monster with 85,000 hit points, youcan't suddenly use the same combat mechanics to fight other players who have 120 hit points without a 20 foot crowbar in the mechanics to make it work
In a game where the entire world in nicely hand rafted environments for theme park dungeon raid bosses and quests, you can't also suddenly add buildable castles, roads and towns with player politics (sandbox) and not break it.
The reason why people "fight" over PvP vs PvE in a game is because the other half of the players and their version of fun is an obstacle to the other half who are trying to have their version of fun.
The game developers are trying to make everyone happy in a single game and "broaden there base" to make more money and it will never work. Pick one, PvP or PvE, Theme or Sandbox, Sub for everyone or Cash shop it. Make two version of the game if you have to, ya know like the Roleplaying Server and the "No PvP" server from way back, eventhat doesnt really work because your game was buolt for one not the other? But don't mix the Hardcore PvP players and the Casual Co-op players into the same room and tell them all to play nice.
You go play Stardew Valley, I'm gonig to go Play For Honor. DO NOT make an RPG Farming simulator that is also a 3d competitive brawler at the same time to get me and my wife to play together. It won't work
http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/ An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!