What else would be the problem? Indecent acts with NPCs?
The fact people could call a game that can be played offline MMO, shows how delusional and stupid the players could be. When we say MMORPG so many people here think about WoW and accept the whole absurd. WoW is not a MMORPG. [emphasis added by me] Let start from this point.
This is something that you mentioned in a previous post that I will add for additional context. I'd like to follow up on that.
[....] Third, if I'm understanding your point correctly, games that permit some form of individual/non-group/non-community play shouldn't be called MMOs. If being in a massively multiplayer online world with opportunities to interact with other players in a meaningful way isn't sufficient, what would need to happen to make an MMO an MMO? Do you have a good example that's already on the market as a reference? [....]
In EVE or L2 before GoD you could grind solo. Often that is what you do most of the time. But that does not make these games singleplayer as they are truly open world. [emphasis added by me] So you have to compete for faming spots, to cooperate for wars, battles, sieges, ambushes and etc. Still even in these real MMORPGs the solo gameplay prevails. It can be done better, much better.
As for games like WoW and clones - they are almost singleplayer. I do not say the conflict solo - multiplayer could be resolved easily, but I think the MMOs should be mostly multiplayer.
[....]
Can you provide a little more explanation? I'm having a hard time understanding just how you define MMORPG. Can you flesh this out a bit more? You said that WoW is not an MMORPG but EVE and L2 are, despite some solo opportunities, because EVE and L2 are truly open world. From your explanation, I understand that to mean the need for grouping to complete and compete in a lot of the content. Yet, I see nearly all MMORPGs (my use of the term, including WoW, EVE, ESO, and nearly all games in my signature) having elements of required grouping on some level.
Just ignore him. Someone who says WoW isn't an mmorpg isn't worth the time to argue that point with, honestly. Especially when he says that WoW is almost a single player game which is ludicrous of a claim to make when most of the freaking content requires grouping.
As for the other reason he probably doesn't consider it to be an mmorpg when he said they are truly open world regarding EVE or L2, he probably said that because WoW has instancing and any game that has instancing isn't an mmorpg in his mind which again, is a stupid claim to make.
What else would be the problem? Indecent acts with NPCs?
The fact people could call a game that can be played offline MMO, shows how delusional and stupid the players could be. When we say MMORPG so many people here think about WoW and accept the whole absurd. WoW is not a MMORPG. [emphasis added by me] Let start from this point.
This is something that you mentioned in a previous post that I will add for additional context. I'd like to follow up on that.
[....] Third, if I'm understanding your point correctly, games that permit some form of individual/non-group/non-community play shouldn't be called MMOs. If being in a massively multiplayer online world with opportunities to interact with other players in a meaningful way isn't sufficient, what would need to happen to make an MMO an MMO? Do you have a good example that's already on the market as a reference? [....]
In EVE or L2 before GoD you could grind solo. Often that is what you do most of the time. But that does not make these games singleplayer as they are truly open world. [emphasis added by me] So you have to compete for faming spots, to cooperate for wars, battles, sieges, ambushes and etc. Still even in these real MMORPGs the solo gameplay prevails. It can be done better, much better.
As for games like WoW and clones - they are almost singleplayer. I do not say the conflict solo - multiplayer could be resolved easily, but I think the MMOs should be mostly multiplayer.
[....]
Can you provide a little more explanation? I'm having a hard time understanding just how you define MMORPG. Can you flesh this out a bit more? You said that WoW is not an MMORPG but EVE and L2 are, despite some solo opportunities, because EVE and L2 are truly open world. From your explanation, I understand that to mean the need for grouping to complete and compete in a lot of the content. Yet, I see nearly all MMORPGs (my use of the term, including WoW, EVE, ESO, and nearly all games in my signature) having elements of required grouping on some level.
Just ignore him. Someone who says WoW isn't an mmorpg isn't worth the time to argue that point with, honestly. Especially when he says that WoW is almost a single player game which is ludicrous of a claim to make when most of the freaking content requires grouping.
As for the other reason he probably doesn't consider it to be an mmorpg when he said they are truly open world regarding EVE or L2, he probably said that because WoW has instancing and any game that has instancing isn't an mmorpg in his mind which again, is a stupid claim to make.
Agreed, but I would argue that WoW has just as much (if not a lot more, honestly) solo content than group content.
Something like 90% of the open world area is stuff that's geared to be done completely solo. Doesn't prevent it from being an MMORPG, but saying that any modern MMORPG has mostly group content doesn't seem to jive with my experiences with WoW, BDO, or ESO. GW2 is more balanced, as is EVE, but the trend of MMORPGs has not been to include primarily group content until the endgame, which amounts to a fraction of the content of the game compared to the leveling content.
This is something that you mentioned in a previous post that I will add for additional context. I'd like to follow up on that. Can you provide a little more explanation? I'm having a hard time understanding just how you define MMORPG. Can you flesh this out a bit more? You said that WoW is not an MMORPG but EVE and L2 are, despite some solo opportunities, because EVE and L2 are truly open world. From your explanation, I understand that to mean the need for grouping to complete and compete in a lot of the content. Yet, I see nearly all MMORPGs (my use of the term, including WoW, EVE, ESO, and nearly all games in my signature) having elements of required grouping on some level.
Massive multiplayer online role playing game. The massive part of WoW, GW2, ESO - is simply not multiplayer. They have different multiplayer parts, like moba and FPS games, but that does not make them MMOs. OK to say they are singleplayer is a little bit harsh, but certainly WoW is not a MMO. If we accept such games are MMOs, so almost every game with some multiplayer instance or part will be a MMO.
BDO too. It is open world, but the rules of gameplay make it mostly solo game. So it is not a MMO. If any of these games had a multiplayer world and solo instances - well they will be MMOs. But it is quite the opposite.
If i was a scientist i'd like to get the chance to examine your brain and figure out how someone could possibly think the way you do.
Massively multiplayer. Not massive multiplayer there is a significant difference.
The first specifically details a lot of people. The second could be talking about big anything.
Neither discuss what the big or multiplayer do that's what the rest of the letters are for.
If WoW is a MMO, so LoL is a MMO too.
You're the guy that gives MMO definition purists a bad name,
"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
Nope I didn't. Massively multiplayer just means there is a lot of people.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Since this has turned into another definition contest. How about this? Let's all create the definition of an MMO? An MMORPG? One where we all agree. I will start.
MMO: A game that is played online, with a large number of other people that inhabit the same space. (ie. Interactions and creation of circumstances can be brought about by other players.)
RPG: A game where you have an avatar, are able to take on the avatar's role (your choice or programmers), and creates circumstances for you to show your avatar's persona and/or skill.
There are my two minute to type definitions. Curious to see others.
Nope I didn't. Massively multiplayer just means there is a lot of people.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
Multiplayer is to play, not to be there. Sorry, but you are completely wrong solo player. MMO could have the opportunity to play solo. But above all it should be a multiplayer game. If it is not, it is not a MMO. I fact LoL is more MMO than WoW. You can chat and talk, make parties and etc. with much more people.
A multiplayer game has the opportunity to play with more than one person.
Multiplayer itself just means more than one person.
Massively multiplayer just means a lots of people.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Nope I didn't. Massively multiplayer just means there is a lot of people.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
Multiplayer is to play, not to be there. Sorry, but you are completely wrong solo player. MMO could have the opportunity to play solo. But above all it should be a multiplayer game. If it is not, it is not a MMO. I fact LoL is more MMO than WoW. You can chat and talk, make parties and etc. with much more people.
A multiplayer game has the opportunity to play with more than one person.
Multiplayer itself just means more than one person.
Massively multiplayer just means a lots of people.
To play with a lot of people. I doubt you have ever played with anyone.
MMO: A game that is played online, with a large number of other people that inhabit the same space. (ie. Interactions and creation of circumstances can be brought about by other players.)
So LoL is a MMO. Also the avatar thing is not RPG.
Ikcin, stop being willfully ignorant (aka stupid). If all you're going to do is try and twist Venge's words and take pot shots, exit stage left. Nobody is buying it.
Ikcin, stop being willfully ignorant (aka stupid). If all you're going to do is try and twist Venge's words and take pot shots, exit stage left. Nobody is buying it.
You cannot claim a game where 80% of the content is solo, and it could be actually played offline is a MMO. It is pretty simple, no matter what Blizzard or the solo players say. Because if you accept that, almost every online game is a MMORPG. Even Dark Souls will be a MMORPG.
No, because you obviously have no clue how genres work.
If I listen to a rap song that's got bad lyrics that I don't care for, it doesn't make it a fucking EDM song. It makes it a bad rap song.
Ikcin, stop being willfully ignorant (aka stupid). If all you're going to do is try and twist Venge's words and take pot shots, exit stage left. Nobody is buying it.
You cannot claim a game where 80% of the content is solo, and it could be actually played offline is a MMO. It is pretty simple, no matter what Blizzard or the solo players say. Because if you accept that, almost every online game is a MMORPG. Even Dark Souls will be a MMORPG.
No, because you obviously have no clue how genres work.
If I listen to a rap song that's got bad lyrics that I don't care for, it doesn't make it a fucking EDM song. It makes it a bad rap song.
Let stay on games please. And you say exactly the same. The fact Blizzard call WoW a MMORPG does not turn it into such. It is a MSORPG with some multiplayer elements. It seems games like WoW need a new definition.
It's called an analogy. It's used to help illustrate a point by using different terms. Regardless, the underlying point remains the same: just because the game utilizes it's massively multiplayer capabilities poorly doesn't make it another genre.
Genres don't make quality assessments. That's a review.
It's called an analogy. It's used to help illustrate a point by using different terms. Regardless, the underlying point remains the same: just because the game utilizes it's massively multiplayer capabilities poorly doesn't make it another genre.
Genres don't make quality assessments. That's a review.
Well, I cannot disagree. But so many games with poor multiplayer quality are called MMORPGs that the definition starts to mean nothing. That discussion by itself shows bold that I'm right - should multiplayer games to be played offline - obviously if they could, they are not multiplayer.
Now, if you wanna talk about how most MMORPGs barely or poorly utilize their capabilities, I can get on board. I actually agree; most MMORPGs do a piss poor job with the massively part.
But we can't just start determining genres by how we feel the game plays.
It's called an analogy. It's used to help illustrate a point by using different terms. Regardless, the underlying point remains the same: just because the game utilizes it's massively multiplayer capabilities poorly doesn't make it another genre.
Genres don't make quality assessments. That's a review.
Well, I cannot disagree. But so many games with poor multiplayer quality are called MMORPGs that the definition starts to mean nothing. That discussion by itself shows bold that I'm right - should multiplayer games to be played offline - obviously if they could, they are not multiplayer.
Now, if you wanna talk about how most MMORPGs barely or poorly utilize their capabilities, I can get on board. I actually agree; most MMORPGs do a piss poor job with the massively part.
But we can't just start determining genres by how we feel the game plays.
It is not a feeling, but objective observation. But, OK.
Even so, genres aren't assigned by quality. They're assigned by the capabilities of the game, specifically here, the capability of multiplayer on a massive scale.
WoW cannot be labeled a singleplayer game. You cannot reserve the world for yourself. You cannot control who goes where in the same world you're in, and you cannot control who interacts with you in the game world (i.e. gankers on PvP servers), save for instanced content.
Even so, genres aren't assigned by quality. They're assigned by the capabilities of the game, specifically here, the capability of multiplayer on a massive scale.
WoW cannot be labeled a singleplayer game. You cannot reserve the world for yourself. You cannot control who goes where in the same world you're in, and you cannot control who interacts with you in the game world (i.e. gankers on PvP servers), save for instanced content.
The only thing I agree is about the PvP servers. We are talking about gameplay, so who is in the world actually does not matter if you do not play together. But in general WoW is exactly a singleplayer game - the main goal is to follow the quests and to get achievements. It has the design of a singleplayer game with few multiplayer instances. And it is not the worst case, games like ESO and BDO could be played completely solo. GW2 is a special case, as there exist three different games.
When we are talking about multiplayer - singleplayer, there are many things involved - the predefined goals, the risks, the rewards, the roles, the implemented need, the predefined effectivity, the kind of RP. If we exclude the RP, players do the things at the most effective way, so if the solo paying is more effective, they will play solo, no matter of the implemented features in the game. And such a thing will turn the game into singleplayer. Definitely it is not a simple issue.
Again, I can agree with you and feel you have good points about MMORPGs not using their strengths very well. But also again, genres can't make those judgements. You and I can (and do), and that's a good thing.
Even without PvP, other players can clear mobs you want/need for your PvE quests or grinding. It still has an effect you can't prevent or control.
Even so, genres aren't assigned by quality. They're assigned by the capabilities of the game, specifically here, the capability of multiplayer on a massive scale.
WoW cannot be labeled a singleplayer game. You cannot reserve the world for yourself. You cannot control who goes where in the same world you're in, and you cannot control who interacts with you in the game world (i.e. gankers on PvP servers), save for instanced content.
The only thing I agree is about the PvP servers. We are talking about gameplay, so who is in the world actually does not matter if you do not play together. But in general WoW is exactly a singleplayer game - the main goal is to follow the quests and to get achievements. It has the design of a singleplayer game with few multiplayer instances. And it is not the worst case, games like ESO and BDO could be played completely solo. GW2 is a special case, as there exist three different games.
When we are talking about multiplayer - singleplayer, there are many things involved - the predefined goals, the risks, the rewards, the roles, the implemented need, the predefined effectivity, the kind of RP. If we exclude the RP, players do the things at the most effective way, so if the solo paying is more effective, they will play solo, no matter of the implemented features in the game. And such a thing will turn the game into singleplayer. Definitely it is not a simple issue.
Again, I can agree with you and feel you have good points about MMORPGs not using their strengths very well. But also again, genres can't make those judgements. You and I can (and do), and that's a good thing.
Even without PvP, other players can clear mobs you want/need for your PvE quests or grinding. It still has an effect you can't prevent or control.
Yeah, but do you need it, and could you prevent it? And the answer is - no to both. So it is a very bad implemented multiplayer feature.
The multiplayer aspect of WoW has always primarily been its dungeons and raids. Even back in vanilla WoW this was true. The core aspect of their group content has ALWAYS been dungeons and raids. MadFrenchie may think overworld content makes up 50%~ of WoWs content. He would be wrong.
Dungeons/Raids is at least 75% of the content. Quests are just meant to level you and show you the story of the zones. Basically to get you from point a to point b. Dungeons/Raiding is what you will spend the vast majority of your time in WoW doing which is why it is at least 75% of the content of the game in my eyes.
Unless you're a god tier player that vastly overgears a raid, it is impossible to solo a current expansion raid. In fact, as far as i know there's only been 1 player that's managed this. A demon hunter by the name of Mione who makes it their goal to solo impossible stuff like Mythic +15 dungeons(think she/he went up to 17), and a few Nighthold(raid) bosses.
The same can be said for dungeons as well. The only dungeons that can be solo'd are low lvl ones with heirloom gear just because of how bad the scaling is in the lower levels but no one cares because WoW literally doesn't even start until you're max level. People are free to think that makes for a terrible game design and they wouldn't even be wrong in saying that but it is what it is.
You claim there's very bad implemented multiplayer feature when you are flat out ignoring all the implemented multiplayer features in the game. Just stop. Either you're trolling at this point or you're trying to bring everyone's IQ down with your posts.
The multiplayer aspect of WoW has always primarily been its dungeons and raids. Even back in vanilla WoW this was true. The core aspect of their group content has ALWAYS been dungeons and raids. MadFrenchie may think overworld content makes up 50%~ of WoWs content. He would be wrong.
Dungeons/Raids is at least 75% of the content. Quests are just meant to level you and show you the story of the zones. Basically to get you from point a to point b. Dungeons/Raiding is what you will spend the vast majority of your time in WoW doing which is why it is at least 75% of the content of the game in my eyes.
Unless you're a god tier player that vastly overgears a raid, it is impossible to solo a current expansion raid. In fact, as far as i know there's only been 1 player that's managed this. A demon hunter by the name of Mione who makes it their goal to solo impossible stuff like Mythic +15 dungeons(think she/he went up to 17), and a few Nighthold(raid) bosses.
The same can be said for dungeons as well. The only dungeons that can be solo'd are low lvl ones with heirloom gear just because of how bad the scaling is in the lower levels but no one cares because WoW literally doesn't even start until you're max level. People are free to think that makes for a terrible game design and they wouldn't even be wrong in saying that but it is what it is.
You claim there's very bad implemented multiplayer feature when you are flat out ignoring all the implemented multiplayer features in the game. Just stop. Either you're trolling at this point or you're trying to bring everyone's IQ down with your posts.
You do not get the point - the instances do not count, as they are not massive. We are talking about the main world. Also the fact anybody could do the raids solo (then how that is a raid?), shows how bad is made the multiplayer content.
To say dungeons are 75% of the content is absurd. Maybe they are 75% of your playing time, but that is not equal to the content. I doubt anybody could down your IQ.
The only one failing to get the point is you. I'm just not even gonna bother trying to get through to you anymore.
Why not , as these companies collect countless millions on the better concept games. Keep the work force going and expand the options. Sounds good to me.
Diablo had offline , open IP/ LAN servers and open online, so it stands to reason with more options would come more interest.
Games that come across as controlled limited option grow stale. Too many try to reinvent the wheel , when they can put some design innovation to work and retain interest longevity.
Dare to dream of a D2 game in a world setting like WoW / Elder Scrolls but with the offline, LAN or online mode as they started with? I'd be in there like swim wear! : )-
Why not , as these companies collect countless millions on the better concept games. Keep the work force going and expand the options. Sounds good to me.
Diablo had offline , open IP/ LAN servers and open online, so it stands to reason with more options would come more interest.
Games that come across as controlled limited option grow stale. Too many try to reinvent the wheel , when they can put some design innovation to work and retain interest longevity.
Dare to dream of a D2 game in a world setting like WoW / Elder Scrolls but with the offline, LAN or online mode as they started with? I'd be in there like swim wear! : )-
Diablo wasn't an mmorpg. So no, it does not stand to reason that that would transfer well to an mmorpg when your only example was not an mmorpg.
The only thing is, the vast majority of MMO players solo and play the game like a singleplayer game anyway so the oldschool fans will go back to the niche hobby MMOs used to be. But that is what they keep asking for.
I keep seeing this stated like it's fact. Where do you get this information? I don't know of one single MMO game that has fun rewarding group play that is also easy to get involved in. Not one. (Well, not any live ones, CoX had a great system) I don't know how you can say whether people want to team up or not if there aren't any good options for them.
I would like it if old dead MMOs got reworked to have an offline single player experience. Yeah it'll never be the same as playing it properly with other people, but it feels like a shame and a waste to let all the content go into the ether, and it could still be a fun nostalgia trip to walk down the old zones for a few hours.
The only thing is, the vast majority of MMO players solo and play the game like a singleplayer game anyway so the oldschool fans will go back to the niche hobby MMOs used to be. But that is what they keep asking for.
I keep seeing this stated like it's fact. Where do you get this information? I don't know of one single MMO game that has fun rewarding group play that is also easy to get involved in. Not one. (Well, not any live ones, CoX had a great system) I don't know how you can say whether people want to team up or not if there aren't any good options for them.
Indeed. There are many attempts for to make a real MMO, but very few successful.
Diablo wasn't an mmorpg. So no, it does not stand to reason that that would transfer well to an mmorpg when your only example was not an mmorpg.
And how WoW is different from cooperative Diablo?
WoW and cooperative Diablo, they are about as alike as Enduro racing and WRC, if you can't tell the difference between them then chances are you won't be able to tell the difference between WoW and Diablo
Comments
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Something like 90% of the open world area is stuff that's geared to be done completely solo. Doesn't prevent it from being an MMORPG, but saying that any modern MMORPG has mostly group content doesn't seem to jive with my experiences with WoW, BDO, or ESO. GW2 is more balanced, as is EVE, but the trend of MMORPGs has not been to include primarily group content until the endgame, which amounts to a fraction of the content of the game compared to the leveling content.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
The first specifically details a lot of people. The second could be talking about big anything.
Neither discuss what the big or multiplayer do that's what the rest of the letters are for.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Very different on the number of players that can occupy the map.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
So yes a million players on the map even if they do nothing make it an mmo. Maybe not a game but yes to an mmo.
A massively multiplayer game means that those people have the opportunity to play together it does not me they must play together. Just that they have the opportunity.
An MMO on its own does not imply anything other than a lot of people.
MMO: A game that is played online, with a large number of other people that inhabit the same space. (ie. Interactions and creation of circumstances can be brought about by other players.)
RPG: A game where you have an avatar, are able to take on the avatar's role (your choice or programmers), and creates circumstances for you to show your avatar's persona and/or skill.
There are my two minute to type definitions. Curious to see others.
Multiplayer itself just means more than one person.
Massively multiplayer just means a lots of people.
If I listen to a rap song that's got bad lyrics that I don't care for, it doesn't make it a fucking EDM song. It makes it a bad rap song.
Genres don't make quality assessments. That's a review.
But we can't just start determining genres by how we feel the game plays.
WoW cannot be labeled a singleplayer game. You cannot reserve the world for yourself. You cannot control who goes where in the same world you're in, and you cannot control who interacts with you in the game world (i.e. gankers on PvP servers), save for instanced content.
Even without PvP, other players can clear mobs you want/need for your PvE quests or grinding. It still has an effect you can't prevent or control.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
Why not , as these companies collect countless millions on the better concept games. Keep the work force going and expand the options. Sounds good to me.
Diablo had offline , open IP/ LAN servers and open online, so it stands to reason with more options would come more interest.
Games that come across as controlled limited option grow stale. Too many try to reinvent the wheel , when they can put some design innovation to work and retain interest longevity.
Dare to dream of a D2 game in a world setting like WoW / Elder Scrolls but with the offline, LAN or online mode as they started with? I'd be in there like swim wear! : )-
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I don't know of one single MMO game that has fun rewarding group play that is also easy to get involved in. Not one. (Well, not any live ones, CoX had a great system) I don't know how you can say whether people want to team up or not if there aren't any good options for them.