Trending Games | ArcheAge | Guild Wars 2 | WildStar | Trove

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,870,038 Users Online:0
Games:744  Posts:6,253,444

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

AnimeWill MMO Reviews and Opinions

Whether you care what I think or not. Here is my view on the world of MMORPG's.

Author: gom276

MMO without RPG?

Posted by gom276 Friday April 11 2008 at 8:24AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

I have heard and read a lot of people talking about what makes an MMO an MMO and the technical definition is. "Any game that has the massively Multi-Player Online."  But Then games like Halo3 would be considered MMO's as well as any online multi-player title.

Wiki defines MMO's as "A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMOG or simply MMO) is a video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on general purpose computers; most of the newer game consoles (Xbox 360, PSP, PS3, Wii, etc.) can access the internet, and thus can have MMO genre games."

So can we differentiate the MMO from the RPG?  The community of MMORPG fans hold tight onto their definition.  Which is a "persistent world" where players can have interactivity, trade and cooperation where characters are developed and improved upon.  Yet more and more FPS and console titles are moving towards persistent character development meaning they work on developing and improving a character buying new gear and equipment for him.  They often participate in co-op missions with other online partners.  With the goal of leveling up their character to give them advantages in the game.  While the world itself is not persistent the characters are.  Yet the media and most MMO fans do not call this an MMO

Has the term MMO been hijacked by the RPG?  Could we not have MMOFPS or MMOPVP?  Yet I only tend to hear MMO when it relates directly to RPG online titles.   most console titles are defined as an "FPS with online play" or a "VS game with online capabilities."  As someone who is a huge MMO RPG fan and also a huge console and PC game fan.  I enjoy both equally and spend about equal time on both.  (*begins to understand why my wife hates them both now that I think about it.*)  But I have always pondered... why we can't have a MMO without the RPG element?

Perhaps we could say that no medium except RPG lends itself to the MMO name more since it can have the largest online community at any given instance.  Since most console online titles or PC games with online "capabilities" do not require them to be online to play.  But since most titles are made for online play and in most cases the "Campaign" portion of the game is considered secondary to it's online component.  Could we not call these titles MMO?

I know some of you are saying "what's the difference." or "boy you wonder about stupid...  crap." (I know some of you would use something more colorful but I will refrain.)  But it just piqued my curiosity as to psychological reason we tend to only use the MMO moniker with the RPG.  Would we gain anything by calling titles like halo 3 MMO's or the many other online FPS and other games out there?  Most likely not.  But wouldn't someone be justified in using MMOFPS to explain such titles without the wrath of the MMORPG community falling down upon them?

Now in saying that I am as guilty as the next guy as using the MMO term exclusively to reference all MMORPG titles.  But should we not try to share it with others so that we can have a single term to use for any and all online games.  Would it not be nice to say MMO and know it means any game with massive multi-player online community.  Then let each tag on their genre of play style to the end?  Would it not be the right thing to do as such generous and kind people that us MMORPG fans are?..... 

On second thought... You know what... it's quite a pain to always have to type MMORPG when I want to reference my MMORPG games... let those "other" people get their own acronym. ;P

vajuras writes:

I'm not sure I follow, we cant call Halo 3 an MMO because it does not support thousands of concurrent players on the same map. Usually, in order to earn the proper MMO title we should be able to expect at least hundreds of players to congregate in the same area. If thats not possible then its not an MMO to most folks. Checkout mmorpg.com definition of MMOs.

Wasnt sure if you were saying you look forward to MMOFPS but if you are join the crowd :P

Fri Apr 11 2008 10:10AM Report
Majinash writes:

I have 2 things to say about this.  First: We already have MMOFPS games.  Look at planetside, its got a massive presistant world, large numbers of people and it's a FPS at heart.  I believe Huxly (havn't heard about it in awhile) is also going after the MMOFPS title.

 

The other thing about this is how we define role playing games.  Right now an RPG simply involves levels and stats. the "RPG element" we see devolopers talk about is simply the addition of scaling power based on XP.  the more you play the stronger you get.  But really arn't most games role playing? in Half life you play the role of Gordan Freeman.  in Halo you play the role of MC or the arbiter.

We are simply misusing the term "RPG" in video games.  Table top RPG involved leveling because it made the game persistant and gave reward.  you didn't really play the role of anything when you sat down for a game of checkers or Sorry or connect four.  and when you play most puzzle games online right now (peggle, bookworm ect) you arn't really role playing, you're just solving puzzles.

 

But games without levels are also RPGs.  Final fantasy with its turn based combat, high focus on levels and skills and equipment has far more in common with pre-computer role playing.  but that doesn't mean its the only type.  Any game where you take on the persona of anything else is an RPG.  As soon as that game starts adressing you as a part of it, you are role playing.  You don't need levels or stats or big swords to play an RPG, just a feeling of being someone other than yourself.  A 7 foot tall alient killing machine, or a roman city builder, whichever role you play, you are still playing a role.

 

/end

Fri Apr 11 2008 10:25AM Report
gom276 writes:

Yeah I think it is how the MMO term seems to be linked to RPG.  For instance I have heard many times that people don't think Guild Wars is an MMO.  Or that PVP based games are MMO's.  They tend to label only RPG's as MMO.

It was more about the fact that the various definitions I found around the internet varied but almost all had some kind of relation to RPG's as being a persistent world.  This one thing bothered me since a lot of games have massive online gaming communities even if the worlds are not persistent.  So wouldn't they technically be MMO's.  Halo 3 may not allow 1000's of people on one map but the game could have 100's of thousand players all online at once in a common theme and interacting.  Why does it have to be persistent world?  Nowhere in MMO does the word "world" come in.

Not that I mind just making an observation about how we as people have coined a acronym to mean more than the sum of its parts.

Fri Apr 11 2008 12:10PM Report
gom276 writes:

I will say this I would love to see more non RPG MMO's a true FPS MMO or MMOFPS would be awesome.  I imagine something a kin to Bioshock as an MMO... fun days to be had.

Fri Apr 11 2008 12:27PM Report
vajuras writes:

"First: We already have MMOFPS games.  Look at planetside, its got a massive presistant world, large numbers of people and it's a FPS at heart."

Planetside doesnt count as an FPS from what Ive seen they do clientside prediction instead of serverside. Not saying it sucks or anything but I would I look forward to is a full server side implementation., Thats when the *FIRST* MMOFPS will be released (rather it be Huxley or whatever else)

Fri Apr 11 2008 1:08PM Report
vajuras writes:

To elaborate for the less technical:

FPS games use client/server tech whereas the server is the authority. When you shoot your gun, the server decides if you hit another client. Not the player (client)

Planetside made clients the authority which is way less acurate and more vulnerable to exploits.

So technically, from an FPS gamer point of view, Planetside wasnt really any more an MMOFPS then Tabula Rasa to an extent

Fri Apr 11 2008 1:12PM Report
vajuras writes:

"            We are simply misusing the term "RPG" in video games.  Table top RPG involved leveling because it made the game persistant and gave reward.  you didn't really play the role of anything when you sat down for a game of checkers or Sorry or connect four.  and when you play most puzzle games online right now (peggle, bookworm ect) you arn't really role playing, you're just solving puzzles.            

            But games without levels are also RPGs.  Final fantasy with its turn based combat, high focus on levels and skills and equipment has far more in common with pre-computer role playing.  but that doesn't mean its the only type.  Any game where you take on the persona of anything else is an RPG.  As soon as that game starts adressing you as a part of it, you are role playing.  You don't need levels or stats or big swords to play an RPG, just a feeling of being someone other than yourself.  A 7 foot tall alient killing machine, or a roman city builder, whichever role you play, you are still playing a role."

Well said there interesting point of view

Fri Apr 11 2008 1:52PM Report
Hexxeity writes:

Maginash, you are missing one thing -- an RPG must contain the element of ongoing story.  Otherwise, any game in the history of gaming could be considered an RPG, including Candyland.

Fri Apr 11 2008 3:35PM Report
telebreth writes:

I would like to chime in here. MMO is Massively Multiplayer Online that reference was given so OTHER genres could be adapted. Shame on them for making EVERY freaking MMO out there a Role-Playing game.....Doesnt need to be that way.

RPG is a genre.

FPS is a genre.

Action Adventure a genre.

Stick to your genres and give us games. PERIOD. We want them all. However....we wish to have them with the same exact rules that would apply if we were playing a console title.

Its not a difficult concept here.

A FPS does NOT need to have leveling and experience to make it suitable or valid. Just like a Role-Playing game does not need FPS elements to make it an enjoyable RPG. There are things in each genre that make these genres unique to the people that play them. Toy within the elements of each genre's rules. However, do not give us the term "ground-breaking!" because you added first person shooter crosshairs to my UI.

MMO is a new genre unto itself that could allow each console genre as we know it to expand their player base and give everyone a unique experience. Sort of like dozens of Marios all playing together to save the Mushroom Princess in a Massively Multiplayer Online Action Adventure Game.

 

It would be possible if the Developers understood what they were actually developing, because some of us are keen to some definitions. Even if our grammar sucks balls.

Fri Apr 11 2008 3:46PM Report
telebreth writes:

One more thing, I understood the reference when the lingo first came out. Not every MMO deserves "RPG" beside it. But every game with a subscriber base where all players play together should have MMO beside it.

I look forward to seeing developers make Action Adventure games and RTS games MMO in the future. It would be nice to have dozens of RTS battles going in a universe that was as expansive and at any time a map fight would be taking place where you could watch or partake and here is the difference from current sports RTS.....A persisitant changing universe. It doesnt exist....but hot DAMN it would be cool.

Fri Apr 11 2008 3:53PM Report
Tarka writes:

The acronym MMO has been linked with RPG simply out of tradition and history.  There's no reason why you can't use the term MMO to encompass MMORPG's, MMOFPS's, etc, etc.

The difference between an MMOFPS and a single player game with online gameplay is basically the sheer size of "map" and the amount of people the map can hold at any one time.   Just compare the likes of WWII Online and Battlefield 1942.

With that said, the lines are being blurred more and more as each game is released.  Is Tabula Rasa an MMORPG?  MMOFPS or MMOTPS (third person shooter)?

Fri Apr 11 2008 5:16PM Report
telebreth writes:

Tabula Rasa is (imo) a blend of two genres. The FPS and the RPG. It has elements of both but is much more a red-headed step child than a solid niche.

Fri Apr 11 2008 6:40PM Report
Majinash writes:

Hexxeity I have to disagree.  No where in RPG do i see a requirement of an ongoing story.  smaller stories that have nothing to do with each other work just fine as long as you get to experience the role of someone else, or even no REAL story at all, just the backround of terrorists vs counter-terrorsists in counterstrike.

 

Checkers isn't an RPG, poker isn't an RPG.  but when you play the role of the master chief, thats the same as playing the role of Cloud or Squall or lvl 70 orc #76394. 

I really don't think the attachment of MMO to RPG matters as much as the fact that we misuse RPG so much.  I dislike that we think role playing means grinding levels.  that devs think they need to add levels to planetside in order to give it an RPG element (not that the levels were too bad).  I hope we can simply learn that levels and XP can be great on their own, but they don't mean RPG.

Fri Apr 11 2008 9:03PM Report
Fwankling writes:

I thought we've reached a consensus in that the RP element exists in all genres of modern games?

A genre defines itself by the core of its gaming experience; in an RPG, the RP aspect is more prevalent than any other feature you may experience.

Halo not being MMO: because the first letter stands for "massive".

Put it this way: even if a game could supported enough people from a large scale internet cafe to interact with each other, that'd only be considered to be "multi-play".

MMO isn't a term unique to RPGs, but there hasn't been a game that's worthy of the MMO term quite as much as the MMORPG's out there.

Sat Apr 12 2008 1:56AM Report
tempestorm writes:

WoW is a FPS. You go out into the world... we'll use Stranglethorn Vale as an example. You get to Nessingway's site and get killed by a group of opposite faction. You respawn at a graveyard run down to your body and fight them again. Either you die or they do... rinse repeat. Battlegrounds are by far the best example of this. They are nothing but a massive FPS set up.

There are no real drawbacks to death, it's meaningless. It's a FPS.

Sun Apr 27 2008 12:11PM Report
tiengu writes:

A MMO is every game you can only play online for me. The kind of mmo is defined by the appendix rpg (story, character development), fps (shooter), rts (strategy) i think

Sat Nov 28 2009 10:26PM Report

MMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment