Originally posted by demalus

  Here's why there is whining: most people seem to now think that all sorts of games are MMOs - which makes companies make non-MMOs instead of MMOs.  

How did you come up with this rational? Do you work for a gaming production company?

Originally posted by arenasb

Originally posted by demalus

  Here's why there is whining: most people seem to now think that all sorts of games are MMOs - which makes companies make non-MMOs instead of MMOs.  

 

How did you come up with this rational? Do you work for a gaming production company?

He doesn't need to work for anyone, he just has to read the marketing material for more and more recently released games. MMO's are games with persistant worlds on a single server (cluster) which house x number of players concurrently. The amount of players is not defined, however mmorpg.com has put that number at 500 (its their site they make it what they want).

But if you don't stick to your own criteria in the end, over a period of time the site will become mainstream and that opens a niche (one that this site itself exploited from other, larger game sites) its happened before and will happen again. Perhaps the owners here are realising that now they have a large number of members they can leave that niche and go for the more abundant bigger bucks in all game areas, who knows?

It's just a matter of time before we have a new mmorpg.com that has a more stringent adherence to mmo's and people looking solely for that genre will move on (if they havn't already, there are quite a few ready to fill the shoes doing pretty well) the whole 'the site has sold out', 'its gone carebear' thing seems to be a big issue on the interwebs.

So for me while mmo's have obviously evolved their principle can't, GW is not an mmo, sorry it just isn't neither is any other game that makes the claim due to some lobby (that doesn't mean they aren't great games, just that they aren't mmorpg's). MMORPG.com however has evolved, outside of the sphere of mmo's it would seem.

There's no real reason for them to stick completely to MMOs, I know it's the website name and all, but most of us play other types of games too, why not list all online games? Might get them more add money so they can keep the site up and do improvements. Nothing wrong with that.

Well mmos have been craptastic for quite some time. Who wants to come here and talk about how bad mmos are all the time. I am glad they listed the general gaming section because I like coming here to discuss games.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Originally posted by arenasb

Originally posted by demalus

  Here's why there is whining: most people seem to now think that all sorts of games are MMOs - which makes companies make non-MMOs instead of MMOs.  

 

How did you come up with this rational? Do you work for a gaming production company?

 

He doesn't need to work for anyone, he just has to read the marketing material for more and more recently released games. MMO's are games with persistant worlds on a single server (cluster) which house x number of players concurrently. The amount of players is not defined, however mmorpg.com has put that number at 500 (its their site they make it what they want).

But if you don't stick to your own criteria in the end, over a period of time the site will become mainstream and that opens a niche (one that this site itself exploited from other, larger game sites) its happened before and will happen again. Perhaps the owners here are realising that now they have a large number of members they can leave that niche and go for the more abundant bigger bucks in all game areas, who knows?

It's just a matter of time before we have a new mmorpg.com that has a more stringent adherence to mmo's and people looking solely for that genre will move on (if they havn't already, there are quite a few ready to fill the shoes doing pretty well) the whole 'the site has sold out', 'its gone carebear' thing seems to be a big issue on the interwebs.

So for me while mmo's have obviously evolved their principle can't, GW is not an mmo, sorry it just isn't neither is any other game that makes the claim due to some lobby (that doesn't mean they aren't great games, just that they aren't mmorpg's). MMORPG.com however has evolved, outside of the sphere of mmo's it would seem.

It's nice that you can write an opinion on something that has nothing to do with what I said. However, what you just talked about there is just your opinion. The nice thing about this forum is that we are free to voice them. My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?
 

I suppose everyone has different standards. I'd consider Team Fortress 2 to be more of an MMO than many on the current list, but whatever. I think many "MMO"s have alot to learn from the non-MMOs/FPSs out there, especially with reguard to PvP balance and how players get into instanced PvP maps. I can't believe the industry leader is still using a queue system to get players together in PvP instances, even though Diablo 2's Battle.net was better for that, in my opinion.

Originally posted by arenasb

It's nice that you can write an opinion on something that has nothing to do with what I said. However, what you just talked about there is just your opinion. The nice thing about this forum is that we are free to voice them. My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?
 

 

Would that be them orange apples with segments and orange peel? See I know we used to call them oranges, but my opinion, the fruit formerly known as oranges is now an apple. Cool, I'm liking this whole re-definition thing to support my arguement..

It suits the purpose.

Adam1902, the changes made to the genre have made it inarguably more popular.  WOW and modern MMORPGs are inarguably more fun to a larger group of people than UO.

If you don't call that evolution, I'm not really sure what to say.

I'm not even sure I'd call this "dumbing down" the genre.  Perhaps you'd care to explain what made UO so "complex"?

To me it always sounded rather rudimentary and simplistic, with a weak combat system and poorly thought out game mechanics (well-thought out for their day, but the inelegance is to be expected for any pioneering individual.)

Oh it had plenty of freedom, but that freedom didn't sound like it created deep/interesting gameplay.

It only suits a purpose for which we already have names. How is this difficult? GW is an MOG, they're not new they've been around for eons, GW is an evolution of them but why do we have to take a definition for a different genre and use it for something we already have a name for. That's usually called making a mistake

And there are reasons for not doing it (one directly above) people will start comparing actual mmo's with online co-op, dethmatch games when technonologically they are completely different things, you can never compare them because game worlds like GW can not (with current technology) be made into an mmo.

As for the 'learning' about que thing. As an example, WoW is an MMORPG with its persistant world and the bulk of the game's activity within it, in addition it has co-op or MOG features, elements with its raids, arenas and battlegrounds. That's not an opinion thats a direct translation of the words that make up the acronym, like I said 'Masively' is subjective, but this site has its definition set at 500 players (they just ognore that).

Originally posted by demalus

Originally posted by MursaJr

acronym nazis, is it really that bad to have a forum for a game? they dont force you to go to it. All it does is give people another place to talk about that game. Do people really just whine about pointless stuff like this?

 

Why would they name their site "MMORPG.com" if acronyms were merely loose and vague pseudo-descriptions?  Here's why there is whining: most people seem to now think that all sorts of games are MMOs - which makes companies make non-MMOs instead of MMOs.  Is it so hard for you to allow people to enjoy a genre, or does everyone have to live in Plainville, Ordinaryland?

Because MMORPG is a established brand and it is easier to change its content than its brand.

Just look at gamefaqs.com ... do you think they only have faqs on the site? Plus, if you can always skip through the parts in MMORPG that does not deal with what you consider a MMORPG.

This site took a wrong turn years ago when they put Hellgate London on the list and then defended the reasons which caused a little uproar. Nothing new with this discussion.

Why is MMORPG.com now listing games that aren't MMORPGs?

Answer:

General Gaming
A place to discuss non-MMORPG gaming.

Originally posted by Adam1902

Look at this for instance, Ultima Online. One of the first MMOs in the west, the one that started it all pretty much, I like to think that this game almost defines what MMO really means.

See, that's like saying that the Model T defines what "automobile" means.  It might to you, but to many and perhaps most people, the MMO has gone far, far beyond what UO ever was and has dramatically improved on the genre.  I loved UO back in the day, but it's just not a game I'd have any interest in playing today.  We've moved beyond it, let's give it credit for what it did and move on.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Adam1902, the changes made to the genre have made it inarguably more popular.  WOW and modern MMORPGs are inarguably more fun to a larger group of people than UO.

If you don't call that evolution, I'm not really sure what to say.

I'm not even sure I'd call this "dumbing down" the genre.  Perhaps you'd care to explain what made UO so "complex"?

To me it always sounded rather rudimentary and simplistic, with a weak combat system and poorly thought out game mechanics (well-thought out for their day, but the inelegance is to be expected for any pioneering individual.)

Oh it had plenty of freedom, but that freedom didn't sound like it created deep/interesting gameplay.

Here's what I would argue: All of the new players aren't playing MMOs because they are MMOs, but because they are the "hip" games to play.  It's like buying the original XBOX to play Halo - well, people bought WoW because it was a big thing.  It's success is more like Diablo 2 than it is like an MMO.  I'm not saying WoW is necessarily a bad game, but it's not a very good MMO.  I'll try to think of a way to explain this difference better at some point in time... Anyways, it would be like Fantasy Football being the only reason people watch Football (obviously not true, but it's the same thing).  WoW's popularity isn't due to it's MMO features, but it's quality, ability to link out-of-game content (i.e. armory), and ability to really engage with its audience on many different levels (Blizzcon, fanart, cinematics, etc.).  The only point I'm trying to make though is that WoW in my opinion would be a much better game if it were released as a "massive Diablo 2" rather than an MMORPG (although WoW isn't a complete desecration of the genre...it's still got all of the necessary MMO features, but they aren't the meat of the game).

Originally posted by vesavius

 

I am less concerned about the 'MMO' part of the name being ignored then I am the 'RPG' personally.

Here, here. And don't forget, when the term mmo was first coined, it was pretty much used to describe any game that made room for more than the typical 4 player, or if you were lucky, 8 person multi-player game. But who really cares, it's the 'RPG' aspect that is seriously lacking in most games these days.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Adam1902, the changes made to the genre have made it inarguably more popular.  WOW and modern MMORPGs are inarguably more fun to a larger group of people than UO.

If you don't call that evolution, I'm not really sure what to say.

I'm not even sure I'd call this "dumbing down" the genre.  Perhaps you'd care to explain what made UO so "complex"?

To me it always sounded rather rudimentary and simplistic, with a weak combat system and poorly thought out game mechanics (well-thought out for their day, but the inelegance is to be expected for any pioneering individual.)

Oh it had plenty of freedom, but that freedom didn't sound like it created deep/interesting gameplay.

Nice post, and I totally see what you're saying.
But, imagine yesterdays features, with todays graphically enhanced 3D worlds and game engines. I personally believe that the only reason this hasn't been done in a fantasy MMO (there are reasons why it can be done in a game like Eve Online) is because of technology limitations.

"My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?"
Don't mean to be picky, but things like this is fact, not really opinion. GuildWars is not an MMO, and the only 'MMO' part about it is the towns. Actually, I believe it says on their website somewhere in black & white, that GuildWars is not an MMO, they prefer to call it a -can't remember-. Not sure if it's still there or not.

"however mmorpg.com has put that number at 500"
Ah-ha! Now this is interesting. You see, most Korean FPS games (such as all the ones on the list here) are slightly different to the way "our" "western" FPS games work. In CounterStrike, or Call of Duty for example, the game servers (rooms where you play the game) are hosted by the players and gaming communities themselves, they are not hosted by the game developers (although a couple might be).

In Korean FPS, I'll use SuddenAttack as an example (because I believe this is what made FPS games take off in Korea). The rooms are not actually hosted by a players connection, infact none of it is hosted by the players connection. In SuddenAttack, you login -> Connect to a server (which holds 500 players!) -> then join a room (16 players max) which has been made by a player. Like I said, these rooms are not hosted by the player, they run from the server. In a server, there is many rooms holding 16 players, so technically, all these players are playing on the same server, right? See what I'm saying?
So they have the technology to have 500 people connected to 1 server, but they aren't using it to put those 500 players in the same game. 16 players is the max to a game. WarRock works like this, CombatArms works like this. All the Korean FPS games seem to (which seem to be the ones that are listed).

So, are they defining the term 'MMO' by what the technology they are using is probably capable of, and not the actual gameplay its self? See what I'm saying?

Another note: It's cool to have a general gaming section and all, definately a good thing. But at the end of the day, this is an MMORPG website, which I assume to come to for talking about MMORPGs? ;) It's good having a general gaming forum, but listing them in the MMORPG list is strange to me (yes, it's their site I know). Maybe if they seperate the list, MMOs and general game sections.

Ah, and someone posted something along the lines of "Oh, who looks at the list, it's useless". Actually, I look at the list, so I'm sure quite alot more do. I basically use this website to inform me of MMORPGs. This is what I use to know about new MMORPGs in the making, being released etc. This is the website that when I'm researching a game for example, I'd come look here first, and follow the links off this site to lead on to more information.
This site is quite a bit more than a forum. You got blogs, reviews, news, "the List", etc. ;)

Anyway, sorry about the way I've been quoting.
Interesting replies,
Cheers.

Originally posted by Adam1902

 

"My opinion, GW is an mmo. How about them apples?"
Don't mean to be picky, but things like this is fact, not really opinion. GuildWars is not an MMO, and the only 'MMO' part about it is the towns. Actually, I believe it says on their website somewhere in black & white, that GuildWars is not an MMO, they prefer to call it a -can't remember-. Not sure if it's still there or not.

It's not a fact, it's your opinion.

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. It is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and confirmed. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation.

All of this is just opinion. Until we have a concrete definition of a MMORPG and we can all decide on what those parameters on what determines an mmo and what doesn't than all of this is just conjecture. You don't think Gulid Wars is an mmo = opinion. I think Guild Wars is an mmo = opinion.

Are they going to be F2P? If your F2P thats your ticket for the game list.

When will BF2 etc make the game list, they might as well be on there? And while you are at it put Pong Online on the list will you, it has two people playing, thats multiplayer.

 Massive, Multiplayer, Online - it really has to be more complicated or else they wouldn't be so great, right?

Really take it at the minimum...but knowing that would include too many and god forbid to use simple logic to explain an acronym, its great to nit pick & point at games going "thats no mmo, no sir!" - "instancing is makes it not/less an mmo" - etc, etc.  The topic is dull & utterly useless to even ask the question, a better one for you:  

Why shouldn't MMORPG list more games as MMORPGs?  Its their site & it opens the flood gates for this inane discussion.  Oh wait, maybe thats why they don't then...

"Its an online RPG or a co-op RPG, its not an MMO" ....they never will be 'massive' enough for you, or have enough "immersion"...so really just let it go.  Its as bad as genre-tizing in music these days, now we need to clarify our MMOs or else our precious classics will be belittled by such despicable claims! how dare they!

Originally posted by Yauchy

 Massive, Multiplayer, Online - it really has to be more complicated or else they wouldn't be so great, right?

Really take it at the minimum...but knowing that would include too many and god forbid to use simple logic to explain an acronym, its great to nit pick & point at games going "thats no mmo, no sir!" - "instancing is makes it not/less an mmo" - etc, etc.  The topic is dull & utterly useless to even ask the question, a better one for you:  

Why shouldn't MMORPG list more games as MMORPGs?  Its their site & it opens the flood gates for this inane discussion.  Oh wait, maybe thats why they don't then...

"Its an online RPG or a co-op RPG, its not an MMO" ....they never will be 'massive' enough for you, or have enough "immersion"...so really just let it go.  Its as bad as genre-tizing in music these days, now we need to clarify our MMOs or else our precious classics will be belittled by such despicable claims! how dare they!

No no, the main point of this thread isn't questioning listed games like GuildWars. It's question the recant addition of F2P FirstPersonShooter games. These games are neither MMO or RPG. They're FPS with a limited number of players (16 in SuddenAttack), so why are they here, listed as MMORPGs? See what I'm saying.
These games have existed for ages, for about 4 or 5 years. But only just recantly they've been put on the list, so obviously it's a decision they've made recantly that classifies FPS games as MMORPGs.

Oh, and arenasb: Maybe you should look into GuildWars a little more. The developers themselves say: "Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game)." (Source: GuildWars FAQ). Or by your standards, is that only their opinion?
They explain its differences from a typical MMORPG, and prefer to call it a CORPG. Like I said, the only MMO part is the towns. It's a good game, I'm not bashing the game at all so don't get me wrong. But it's not an MMO (once you get outside the towns and play the game), though.
 

Originally posted by Adam1902

Oh yes, GuildWars etc is definately more MMO (and it's an RPG!) than FPS games. These generic FPS games are not MMO at all (Planetside is however, see the difference?).

A couple of posts irritated me a little (sorry, just being honest :D, don't take me personal), those were "Why do I care about a genre classification so much?", and "the genre is evolving".

Well... I can tell you that the MMO genre is definately not evolving (yet), but rather, it is de-evolving. The only thing that's evolving is graphics and effects.
Look at this for instance, Ultima Online. One of the first MMOs in the west, the one that started it all pretty much, I like to think that this game almost defines what MMO really means. Some people won't understand where I'm going with this, but let me say this: Ultima was an completely open world with no instancing, it had player housing, and each player had a totally different aim from the next. For example, one players aim would to be a popular trader and crafter. The next persons aim might of been to build a village. Someone else might want to put an end to PKing, whilst the other guy would want to be a criminal who lives by killing and robbing other players. The game may not have had spectacular graphics, but that was because of the date it was made.

Now, we've gone from this game, to WoW. In WoW, every player has the same objective. You are limited to your class by what you choose at the character screen, your enemes are pre-chosen for you at the character screen. Every player has the same goal, get to lv.80, then raid (or PvP for gear, I suppose you have the "PvEers" and "PvPers". Even this is bad point in my eyes, in WoW PvE is totally seperate from PvP, like they're different games almost. In Ultima, PvP tied in with everything). You might want to punch me in my whiney ranting face, and say "HEY! You can craft and trade in WoW, what the f*** are you talking about?". Ahh, yes you can indeed. However, your chaaracter cannot live his "life" in the game, being a crafter and trader. Unless ofcourse you don't want to get anywhere in the game. It's actually quite hard to explain.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say WoW isn't an MMO, because yes. WoW is an MMORPG, wether I like it or not. I'm just explaining how the genre, in general has been dumbed down. There is less diversity, every player does the same thing with the same objective. The genre has de-evolved rather than evolved in my eyes.

This whole post is off-topic by the way, I wanted to answer the question "Why I care so much", and exlain to the other poster why I think MMORPGs haven't evolved.

 

Anyway, back on topic. They're listing non-persistant (except for items), room based generic online FPS games on MMORPG.com now. These are NOT MMOs, in any way, shape or form. They are not RPGs either. They have no place on this website, so what are they doing here? I've seen answers such as "because they can", "it's their site", etc. Yes, that is quite obvious, it's their site and they can do whatever they want with it. But my question of "WHY do they list those games here?" still stands.

Whew! Wall of text, eh?
Seen a few intresting replies anyway, cheers.

They get money from advertising. Maybe they want to get as much traffic as at all possible to this site - including the players of obscure asian FPS'es falsely labeling themselves MMO?

I can't see any other reason.

When they added GW and DDO to the site, I knew that it was going downhill - this is just the next step.

Originally posted by MursaJr

acronym nazis, is it really that bad to have a forum for a game? they dont force you to go to it. All it does is give people another place to talk about that game. Do people really just whine about pointless stuff like this?

What if a music site began reviewing movies and games because they have music in them? Or if they began reviewing supermarkets because they play muzak?

This is an MMO site, a site specialized for one genre of gaming, not a site for random, mis-labeled games, that have nothing to do with the genre.

 I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:

SP - single-player: we all know what that is

MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances

MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)

SMMO - sandbox massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history

Originally posted by alecbr

 I think we need to straighten out the definitions and terminology. I suggest the following definitions:

SP - single-player: we all know what that is

MO - multiplayer online: you have a text-chat lobby and instances

MMO - massive multiplayer online: the same as MO but with an extended lobby:
- 3D lobby with avatars
- persistent lobby and avatars
- you can develop avatars (levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...)
- marketplace
- classes
- professions
- quests (simple and large story driven quests)
- static environment (whatever the players do the world is still the same)

SMMO - sandbox massive multiplayer online:
- one unified and persistent virtual world (not divided into lobby and instances)
- no levels, XP points, honor points, achievements ...
- no classes
- no proffessions
- just skills which you can develop only with using them and it is impossible to develop all of the skills in a reasonable time for example in 100 years
- no quests
- players can influence the environment (building and destroying cities, roads, dams ...)
- players can permanently influence the behavior of the NPC (humanoids and animals)
- no stories, just a historical background until the moment the game starts and from that moment on the players create the stories and the contemporary history

Your SMMO definition (well, part of it) is what MMO should be. But since it has now been diluted beyond recognition, I would go with any other agreed-upon definition. IMO we need a definition that excludes both instance and lobby as part of the game - just one, unified world, where you can potentially meet everyone in the game.

I wouldn't make any limits regarding classes, levels, XP etc. That is too restricting on game design. Although I do recognize the problems with levels, as they in many games segregate the players (players can't play with other just 5-6 levels above or below them), however there are some games with levels, that allow everyone to play together (Planetside).

Your SMMO definition is too narrow, it will restrict game design.